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.)"

Comments

I can't blaspheme?!

[Anonymous Coward]

God damn it!

Re:I can't blaspheme?!

[PopeRatzo]

Jesus, Mary and Joseph!

Do we really want to live in a world where it's not legal for me to say that Allah is a punk, that Jevohah is a murdering psychopath, or that Yaweh is a sadistic monster? Siva is a blue cocksucker and Brahma is two-faced?

Buddah's a lazy son-of-a-whore and Odin liked to give Zeus reach-arounds. There, I said it.

Call me optimistic on this first day of 2010, but I believe that radical Islam and the Christian Right and the orgy of crackpot New Age beliefs is not the sign of a resurgence in religious belief, but rather the dying spasm of an evolutionary adaptation that's no longer necessary.

In my two score and ten, I've seen the end-times deadlines coming more and more fast and furious. But now, with longer lifespans and online archives, we can see the corpses of apocalyptic predictions piling up. They're already starting to hedge on the 2012 mishegaas, covering their pre-columbian asses to avoid looking stupid on Jan 1, 2013. When religions have to be protected by laws and social conventions and political correctness and electronic apologists by the hundreds and armies of millionaire megachurches have to hire public relations firms, it starts to seem like they're whistling past the graveyard.

Anyway, I don't go in for that silly god-stuff. I'm a devout taoist. Tell me my beliefs are a joke and I'll laugh along.

Re:I can't blaspheme?!

[TheLink]

> but rather the dying spasm of an evolutionary adaptation that's no longer necessary.

Evolution is less about removing "no longer necessary", and more about removing "kills you", and keeping "if it works well enough", or "gives an advantage".

As for "dying spasm" and evolution, I'll ask this:

Does Atheism really give the atheist group more/greater evolutionary advantages and fewer disadvantages than groups belonging to the major religious beliefs?

Atheists have fewer ways to take advantage of the very powerful placebo effect[1] ( they also don't have the convenience of "invisible omnipresent person"- unless they somehow really believe in the FSM ;) ).

And they aren't that much less likely to get killed by some religious nutcase.

So it seems to me that the religious bunch might be around for quite a while yet. Why do you think they would be more likely to die out than the atheists?

[1] Which appears to be getting stronger in some cases! http://www.wired.com/medtech/drugs/magazine/17-09/ff_placebo_effect?currentPage=all

Re:I can't blaspheme?!

[oldhack]

Ireland and Iran both share "aria", meaning "noble" in Indo-european language group, as the root of their name.

Guess they share more than the name root.

Re:I can't blaspheme?!

[Chris Mattern]

Brahma is two-faced

Actually, Brahma is four-faced.

Re:I can't blaspheme?!

[PopeRatzo]

Evolution is less about removing "no longer necessary", and more about removing "kills you"

I think a case can be made for "religion kills you".

Not "god kills you" or "faith kills you" or "prayer kills you", but there's something about when believers get together and start collecting money and a-hootin' and a-hollerin' that usually indicates the killing's about to commence.

Re:I can't blaspheme?!

[mhelander]

"So it seems to me that the religious bunch might be around for quite a while yet. Why do you think they would be more likely to die out than the atheists?"

One thing should be very clear: It's not about people dying out, but about memes dying out.

With that in mind, the argument is then that religious memes face a constantly more difficult environment as science takes over more and more of the meme pool. Seeing religions adopt more aggressive strategies, such as discussed in this thread, could be considered a sign of desperation, and an indication that the end times for the religious memes are nearing.

Re:I can't blaspheme?!

[ChrisMaple]

The religious suffer at least two disadvantages

• Religion wastes time and other resources that could be otherwise be used productively.
• Religion is irrational and anti-rational. A religious person must accept contradictions or avoid thinking about things that challenge his beliefs. Either weakens his ability to think effectively.

well god dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

jesus fucking christ you have got to be kidding me

Re:well god dammit

[dronkert]

Yes. Also, a google image search for "jesus fucking christ" is instructive.

Re:well god dammit

[ppanon]

Throughout my university days, I had this idyllic picture of a Maldives beach hanging on my wall. I used to feel bad that the islands would likely get flooded by rising waters due to global warming. Now I only feel sorry for the non-human inhabitants.

Re:well god dammit

[ThePromenader]

Well, as one of millions of athiests out there, I am grossly offended by religious pronunciations in public, and consider the same to be blasphemy to reason. There, fixed that.

Atheists Unite... as a religion

[devnullkac]

If atheists in Ireland really want to stir up trouble, a group of them should formally recognize that atheism is itself a form of religion, register with the government (or submit whatever paperwork is necessary to make their beliefs protected under this law), and then ask that the law be used against priests who advocate that those who do not believe will burn in Hell, since it's a pretty abusive thing to say about a person and surely shouldn't be allowed.

Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion

[Anonymous Coward]

Atheism isn't a religion though. It's like saying not owning a dog is a form of dog ownership. The big argument that religious people use against atheism is that it's a religion that worships science. You know full well how much religious folk like pointing at things and shouting 'See! See! I told you so! I told you so! I was right and you were wrong! I'm going to sing the I was right song!'. We don't need to give the kooks anything else to gum on.

Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion

[clarkkent09]

What I don't understand about the blasphemy laws in general is how do religious people get around committing blasphemy against other religions just by pretty much quoting from their holy books whenever they contradict other holy books. Every Muslim will tell you that Jesus is not really a son of God, hence the Bible is full of lies. Isn't that blasphemy against Christianity?

Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion

[millennial]

Please outline the beliefs of atheism. Please outline atheistic morality. Please define the atheistic purpose for life. If you can't do these, you're spouting bullshit and really out to shut up and let the adults talk.

Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion

[decoy256]

Not to be argumentative, but communism was actually preached as a kind of religion with all the religious fervor trappings that go along with.

Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion

[Totenglocke]

then ask that the law be used against priests who advocate that those who do not believe will burn in Hell, since it's a pretty abusive thing to say about a person and surely shouldn't be allowed.

Except atheists don't believe in heaven or hell, so how can you threaten them with going to hell? That's like threatening me with sending me to the Phantom Zone - since I don't believe it exists, why would I be afraid of you trying to send me there?

Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

In terms of a strict reading of the text, that is exactly how a blasphemy law would work. Pretty much all religions are, at least to some degree, contradictory to all the others, and so to practice one is to blaspheme against the others. The only groups that could actually function under a strictly applied blasphemy law would be agnostics and the purely apathetic. Obviously the supporters of blasphemy laws(who tend either to be fanatically religious, or strongly of the "Aw, can't we all just get along and never say mean things about each other" camp) don't actually intend this outcome.

In practice, though, that isn't how they are used. In practice, anything that enjoys the sanction of tradition and/or substantial popular support, even if formally blasphemous under the text of the law, will not be charged. Anything that is legally blasphemous and arouses public or state ire will be. Depending on the character of the state and the people, this can either involve fairly vicious crackdowns on minority religions and atheists, or the occasional takedown of fringe leaders within generally accepted religions.

Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion

[mog007]

Name a single precept or belief or moral that you can say with absolute certainty that all atheists have, non-atheists do not have, that doesn't involve the disbelief in a deity.

Atheism is simply a response to the position of theism. Is "theism" a religion? No. It's an adjective with regard to belief.

Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion

[Darkness404]

Atheism states that there is no higher power in the world. That there is no god, gods or any higher form of life. And such gods cannot exist based on a few arguments.

As such, its a natural conclusion based on scientific evidence that if there was no god, gods or higher forms of life other than man, that the existence of man is to benefit the species of man. To carry on the normal functions of life, to help others of the same species, to then die. Those are the logical conclusions.

Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion

[millennial]

"Atheism states that there is no higher power in the world."

Atheism states no such thing. It is the rejection of a claim, not a claim of its own.

Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion

[slacker22]

Atheism is a religion inasmuch as not playing tennis is a sport.

Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion

[vadim_t]

Atheism states that there is no higher power in the world. That there is no god, gods or any higher form of life. And such gods cannot exist based on a few arguments.

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.

As such, its a natural conclusion based on scientific evidence that if there was no god, gods or higher forms of life other than man, that the existence of man is to benefit the species of man. To carry on the normal functions of life, to help others of the same species, to then die. Those are the logical conclusions.

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.

Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion

[millennial]

You're not describing what is logical. You're describing what happened. It has nothing to do with logic - it's just what worked. There could be dozens of other ways that species could thrive. In fact, you've pretty much described OUR species and ignored that other species have survived just as well with vastly different social structures.

You cannot derive an "ought" from an "is." You've committed a rather anthropocentric version of the naturalistic fallacy.

Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion

[mqsoh]

It's not the content of your post, but the manner. "Spouting bullshit" and "shut up and let the adults talk" is meant to inflame the person your responding to. It's also completely extraneous. If you remove the last sentence from your post, your position is unchanged.

Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion

[BlindRobin]

Your argument would be fine if it's premise, "that atheism is itself a form of religion", were not false.

I, being one of many, have grown particularly weary of this old canard which, while it may be applied (weakly) to social movements such as "Humanism", does not in the least apply to atheism. Strictly speaking atheism is simply the lack of belief in any or all deities and has none of the attributes of a religion most especially a statement of faith. There is indeed a total lack of dogma, there is no structure or singular impetus from which non-belief is sourced. The mere fact that there exist amalgamations of persons that promote rationality in opposition to ignorance and superstition does not make atheism a religion. In fact such organisations are relatively poorly attended and for the most part formed out of frustration at the need to on one hand defend against personal denigration by members of societies wherein admission of a lack of religious conviction makes one immediately suspect of moral turpitude and on the other hand hold back the growing tide of religious incursion into education and political discourse. Were these needs to dissolve so would the organisations as they do not exist as a means unto themselves as do religious institutions.

Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion

[mog007]

That's not a belief. It's a response to a proposition. Theism is not a religion, and it has just as many "beliefs", just one that is "There is at least one god". Atheism and theism are positions on an issue, not religions in and of themselves.

Buddhism is atheistic, Raelians are atheistic, Christians are theistic, Hindus are theistic.

Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion

[Anonymous Coward]

the existence of man is to benefit the species of man

I challenge the implication that this conclusion logically follows from the singular premise that no god exists. In fact, in order for logic to come in to play, you have an implied premise. Something along the lines of "The existence of man has a purpose." (Actually, you would need still more implied premises to deductively arrive at your conclusion, but I won't belabor the point further).

I directly challenge this implied premise. I submit that "purpose" is not an attribute of material reality, but rather, an abstract concept which humans assign to aspects of material reality. To illuminate: dirt has no purpose. It is just there. But as soon as a human plants a seed in the dirt, the human has given it a purpose.

So, individual humans, being subsets of material reality, do not have any intrinsic purpose. Humans can assign purposes to themselves (and others), however, there is no single objectively-discernible intrinsic purpose. So you might ascribe to man this purpose of serving man, but other men (myself included) make no such ascription.

I therefore conclude that your "purpose of man" is merely a highly-subjective opinion, and should not be given any more special treatment than such opinions as "vanilla tastes better than chocolate" or "the purpose of the poor is to serve the rich."

Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion

[Lord Kano]

If atheists in Ireland really want to stir up trouble, a group of them should formally recognize that atheism is itself a form of religion

Except, of course, that it's not. Atheism is ATHEISM, not ATHEISM. There's a huge difference.

LK

Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion

[millennial]

Give me an example of something logically self-contradictory that exists, and I'll consider your argument valid. Otherwise, there is no reason whatsoever to assume that any such thing could exist.

Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion

[cperciva]

In my dictionary, atheism is defined as "Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God". This is quite distinct from the position of agnosticism, which states that we do not know if there is a God.

Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion

[CrimsonAvenger]

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.

Yah, they're a wonderful example of evolution in action - they'll breed themselves right out of the genepool, and the rest of us can carry on without them just fine.

Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion

[DreamingReal]

"Buddhism is atheistic"

Technically, Buddhism is non-theistic. God or gods may or may not exist, but the question is ultimately irrelevant because attachment is the cause of samsara.

Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion

[nabsltd]

I think the best way to get this overturned is to have people who aren't atheists to bring suit over every possible "blasphemy", because they realize that this law infringes on everyone's freedom of speech and religion. This law basically makes it criminal to have two religions that have opposing beliefs.

For example, any religion that believes that Jesus Christ was the son of God and speaks about it will be "blasphemous" to any religion that does not believe the same thing.

Or, if your religion doesn't believe Mohammed was a prophet of God, it can't say that any more. Likewise, one that does believe it can't say it.

Or, if your religion doesn't believe that 75 million years ago, Xenu brought billions of his people to Earth, stacked them around volcanoes and killed them using hydrogen bombs, you can't say that, either.

It also would appear to outlaw any printing of the Bible, Koran, or any other religious publication.

The question is, how "grossly abusive" does the "publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters sacred by any religion" have to be? Are restaurants that serve pork/beef/whatever guilty? How about stores that are open on Saturday/Sunday/etc.? What about people who work on Saturday/Sunday/etc.?

Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

You seem to be substantially understating the potential offensiveness of theological disagreement and the difficulty of discerning the intent of speech.

For instance, it is a commonplace in all but the really fluffy and liberal pockets of Catholicism to assert the theological position that there is no salvation outside the Church. You don't think that that could "cause outrage among a substantial number of adherents" of one or more Protestant sects? Or that asserting that somebody is subject to eternal damnation isn't, arguably, "grossly abusive"? Protestantism, again with the exception of the kumbaya crowd, commonly holds theological doctrines on salvation that would be precisely as troublesome for the Catholics. And let's not even get into the potential unitarian/trinitarian issues...

In any of those cases(which are hardly cherry picked, the number of analogs one could produce is limited largely by one's knowledge of comparative religion), the law would come down to a nasty bit of hairsplitting about exactly what the intent of the statement was.

Your assertion that "This categorically does not cover legitimate discussion" ends up meaning, in practice, pretty much exactly what I said above. The boundaries of "legitimate" discussion are always drawn by public sentiment and political factors, and blasphemy laws(including this one) are a tool used to stomp on those who fall outside the pale.

Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion

[IICV]

And yet another one is ignosticism - "I don't know what you mean when you say 'god'"

Given that God has no measurable presence in reality, this is actually everyone's position whether they realize it or not.

When Alice tells Bob, "I really like that table", Bob can know exactly which table Alice is referring to, because that table is a well-defined real entity. When Alice tells Bob "I really like God", it is impossible for Bob to know what Alice means, because "God" refers to a poorly defined, potentially imaginary entity.

This applies even if both Alice and Bob follow the same religion; ask ten Roman Catholics to describe God in enough detail, and you will get ten mutually exclusive entities.

Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion

[Artifakt]

One major branch of Buddhism doesn't see any need for gods - That's the Theravadist position. Do the meditation, get off the wheel. Mahayanists would probably say Theravada is good prep for moving into the full Mahayana tradition, and gods are part of the package but the goal is not to become a god but to become enlightened and then go back to get everyone else there. Vajrayanists would generally say there are gods, and then teach you how to make them useful tools for going further if that's needful, but the goal is not to become a magician that can command even gods, but to get enlightned and then make the decision whether to go back and help everyone else or not, except if you can make the decision, you already know which way you will decide.
Theravadists mostly (not all), think the other branches have gotten into too complex models. So does Zen, except that Zen is mostly founded on Mahayana, and wants to avoid throwing out universal compassion with the bath water.
      Some practicing Buddhists out there, feel free to shoot me down on this.

Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion

[Reziac]

Or another postition -- "There are Things Out There (which we don't yet fully understand) that have some of the attributes of a god, but I don't believe that any of them are a supreme being per se, and I'm not required to believe in any of them that I don't wish to."

This is approximately the position of people who manage to be both pagans and atheists at the same time. More akin to the practical view of Greek/Roman polytheism than to modern religion.

Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion

[rantingkitten]

Hang on a second.

Atheism states that there is no higher power in the world. That there is no god, gods or any higher form of life. ... if there was no god, gods or higher forms of life other than man...

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.

Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion

[juuri]

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.

Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion

[AthanasiusKircher]

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"

Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion

[rolando2424]

There are Things Out There (which we don't yet fully understand) that have some of the attributes of a god

Oh, you're talking about programmers, aren't you?

Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion

[Reziac]

In that case, it ought to read:

There are Things Out There (which we don't yet fully understand) that have some of the attributes of a daemon. ;)

Not as bad as it sounds

[jtobin]

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).

Re:Not as bad as it sounds

[Brian Gordon]

what politician wants to seem like they support blasphemy

Hopefully all of them?

Re:Not as bad as it sounds

[MichaelSmith]

I recall that one Christian leader here in Australia opposes laws against blasphemy because to be implemented properly they would have to protect all the religions we currently recognise. And that a lot.

Ireland and Saudi Arabia don't have the same problem of course.

yet

[ionix5891]

another nail in the coffin of the corrupt and incompetent Fianna Fail government (yes the leading party in Ireland has word fail in its name) who voted this in

never will forget what they have done to this country

Re:yet

[crush]

That is a probably incorrect entry: http://www.politics.ie/fianna-fail/10828-what-does-fianna-fail-mean-english.html

It's all about efficiency

[exley]

Apparently the new "laws" actually just prescribe getting blasphemous sites Slashdotted instead of actively taking them down.

Slashdot... A tool of the oppressor(?)

Attention, religious folks.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no god, and Mohammed is his prophet.

(Awesome, my captcha is "opiate.")

Re:Attention, religious folks.

[chill]

Yeah, but with just one eye his depth perception is for shit and you can avoid him pretty easily in low light.

This is one of occasions wher...

[mrphoton]

This is one of occasions where the French have it about right, they have separation of church and state. They do not even allow religion in schools in any form. I don't understand why people think it is ok to force their beliefs on me.

Re:This is one of occasions wher...

[node 3]

But why should you not teach religion in schools?

For the same reason you don't teach astrology.

Belief systems are knowledge are they not?

Almost by definition, they are not.

Re:This is one of occasions wher...

[Hurricane78]

It has nothing to do with “beliefs” that’s a straw-man word.
Religion is a mild schizophrenia. A disease where people don’t use the outside world as a reference for their internal model of it, but a made-up internal model. E.g. “God wants it to be that way, therefore it’s OK that I lost my house, and I don’t have to break down and shoot myself.”
In some way it is a useful mechanism, because it helps people who can’t cope with the actual real world, not to go crazy. We all do an even milder form of it, where we just twist reality a bit... which is basically repression, for the same reason.
The difference between what we do, and what is religion, is that at their level of mind-twisting, tryin to reason with them is a lost cause.

Because I now understand this, I do not have any hatred for religious people anymore. Everyone is just trying to cope with reality in his way. And tomorrow, you could fall in a pit where your only choices would be to go crazy, or to twist your mind just as badly.
Hell, half our behavior is based on wrong social condidioning, which basically also is a mind-twist that is not attached to reality anymore.

Yes, religious statements have no place in any debate. Not in school, not in government, not anywhere. But there is also no point in just calling them idiots and hating them. We, as a community, must face the roots of what caused people to fall back to religion to manage their lives. Because otherwise, we also are only repressing the problem.

If you see someone who is very religious (and normally also very easily driven out of his calm state, when faced with the disparity of reality and his model of it), try to find the roots, help him face and fix them, and let him work the way up again, fixing the disparities in the process.
Or at least don’t make his life even worse. :)

(Be warned though, as that reality bubble can span multiple generations, many people and many things. You may find that you’re simply unable to do anything about it, other than invent a time machine and prevent a couple of wars.)

Re:This is one of occasions wher...

[Bigbutt]

There's a difference between teaching that God created everything in 4000 BC (or thereabouts) and including the historical aspect of religion and how it affected Europe.

[John]

Re:This is one of occasions wher...

[SwedishPenguin]

The US technically has separation of church and state, but not in practice. Congress holds prayers, the "pledge of allegiance" (what is that thing intended for anyways? brainwashing?) contains the phrase "under god", the currency states "in god we trust", etc.

Though I agree that the US tends to take the freedom of expression more seriously. Over here they tend to make illegal anything that is sufficiently unpopular. I certainly don't support racists or homophones, but I don't think they should be prosecuted for their beliefs unless they explicitly threaten a group of people.

Re:This is one of occasions wher...

[Nathrael]

mrphoton's "in any form" was admittedly badly chosen, but you misunderstood him. He meant that French kids don't receive any *religious* education, while they certainly still are educated *about* religion. They learn that the catholics say there's a big man with a white beard in the sky watching over us and Jesus is his son, but they don't learn what the catholics say as a truth - just as an opinion.

Re:This is one of occasions wher...

[bitrex]

.Religion is a mild schizophrenia. A disease where people don't use the outside world as a reference for their internal model of it, but a made-up internal model.

You seem to have a quite simplistic view of religion. Religious beliefs arose out of one of the characteristics that makes us human - our seemingly innate desire to ask questions about reality and know chains of cause-and-effect. Science has answered many of the questions that religion once was used for, but that doesn't mean there are many deep questions to which the scientific method cannot be applied. Some atheists appear to expect humans to throw up their hands in the face of these questions and say "Well! These are not scientific questions, therefore they cannot and will not be approached." It won't happen, our natural desire to know which gave birth to the scientific method in the first place prevents that.

If you see someone who is very religious (and normally also very easily driven out of his calm state, when faced with the disparity of reality and his model of it), try to find the roots, help him face and fix them, and let him work the way up again, fixing the disparities in the process. Or at least don’t make his life even worse. :)

Do you suppose this approach would work at say, the Harvard Divinity School? Do you feel that all religious people are a priori ignorant bumpkins, simply waiting for you to bring the blinding light of reason to raise them up?

Re:This is one of occasions wher...

[Machtyn]

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.

Re:This is one of occasions wher...

[Kymermosst]

I certainly don't support racists or homophones ...

You don't support homophones ??? I had no idea someone would take such a position.

That explains why some people refuse to learn the difference between "their", "there", and "they're"...

Re:This is one of occasions wher...

[IICV]

Science has answered many of the questions that religion once was used for, but that doesn't mean there are many deep questions to which the scientific method cannot be applied. Some atheists appear to expect humans to throw up their hands in the face of these questions and say "Well! These are not scientific questions, therefore they cannot and will not be approached."

Please, feel free to provide examples. I frequently see statements like this, but there's rarely any actual substance to them.

Re:This should be good

[Narcocide]

Wait we have to establish a grading scale first. Most points for the biggest Blasphemy in the least amount of words. How does this do?

Jesus was Buddhist.

Another step backwards

[fyngyrz]

...and Ireland joins other butt-ignorant countries like Saudi Arabia, while here in the USA, freedom of speech reigns paramount.

Well, except in theaters, and near funerals, and at political rallies (unless you're in a "free speech zone" some distance away)...

And some art, well, we just can't have people looking at (or even creating) that...

It'd be nice if congress fixed these things. But of course, we have to wait for them to finish their prayers before they can get started. Oh, and the blessing. By a preacher paid for with tax money.

Re:Another step backwards

[Tablizer]

We in the US have corporate censorship rather than political censorship. The RIAA, DRM, DMCA, and their likes are pretty powerful tools. Witness Scientology's use of them to remove stuff they don't want out there.

this will be fun

[DMoylan]

they banned life of brian making it one of the most pirated films in the 80s in ireland. every body i knew had a copy.

banning something in ireland automatically encourages it.

we'll probably need a blasphemy per comment counting system.

the first person to try and prosecute somebody with this will be the laughing stock of this country for quite a while.

Re:this will be fun

[fermion]

The funniest thing that could happen is that a religious person is brought up on charges. It is almost impossible to create a sermon or whatever without being blasphemous to fragment of some religions. Some Christian sermons I hear about are out right blasphemous to non-christian religions. At the very least, many mention jewish and muslim people in a very negative manner, and tend to disrespect Mohammed. On a subtler note, there is quite a bit of blasphemy between the Christian sects. if one says that the Trinity exists, that is blasphemous to Unitarians. If one says the only way to heaven is to accept Jesus, that is blasphemous to religions who do not believe that. If you force prayer in public places, that is blasphemous to anyone who takes the bible literary, in terms of Mathew 6:5-18, which, given the prevalence of pray in school in the US is few and far between.

So I would honestly hope this would cool down the rhetoric in Ireland, and for the so-called religious leaders to act like civilized persons.

No, it's a stupid idea...

[fyngyrz]

...because atheism isn't a religion. Being atheist is simply the state of being without a belief in a god or gods. There is no dogma, no canon, no "book of how to behave", no punishment, no reward. It's just a lack of belief. Atheism doesn't define a person's outlook, behavior, morals or ethics. Atheism is the condition of trundling forward in life without said beliefs. That's all it is. So you can, and you will, encounter atheists who despise theism, atheists who don't care about theism, and atheists that are very interested in it for any number of reasons. Each will have their own way of dealing with life, because, and I am really repeating myself here, atheism contains no instructions of "how to" anything.

As some (very clever) wag has said: If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color.

Re:No, it's a stupid idea...

[PakProtector]

'No it's not! said Constable Visit. 'Atheism is a denial of a god.'

'Therefore It Is A Religious Position,' said Dorfl. 'Indeed, A True Atheist Thinks Of The Gods Constantly, Albeit In Terms of Denial. Therefore, Atheism Is A Form Of Belief. If The Atheist Truly Did Not Believe, He Or She Would Not Bother To Deny.'

Re:No, it's a stupid idea...

[zill]

s/atheism/Pastafarianism/g

Just claim that in the Irish denomination of Pastafarianism, "God" is the name of the devil and its utterance is blasphemy.

Re:No, it's a stupid idea...

[spottedkangaroo]

You can't have ethics without believing in a faerie?

Re:No, it's a stupid idea...

[PakProtector]

Terry Pratchett. It's from the novel "Feet of Clay."

Re:No, it's a stupid idea...

[dontmakemethink]

An athiest could only be compared to a bald head if the athiest never contemplated the existence of a god or deity. What generally defines an athiest is their _rejection_ of religions, which is no less a belief structure than a religious one.

A more appropriate metafor would be to compare atheism with white hair, devoid of color pigment. It appears white because it reflects light instead of absorbing it, in the same way an athiest rejects religious views. Incidentally, white is also not a color, which doesn't make it invisble.

If you're really hankering for contradiction, to disbelieve in belief itself is also a belief structure, much like necessity isn't necessarily necessary. We also drive on parkways and park on driveways. Somehow, life goes on...

Re:No, it's a stupid idea...

[Lemmy Caution]

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."

Re:No, it's a stupid idea...

[stereoroid]

Dictionaries are not infallible, or the last word on a subject. Who wrote the dictionary definition - someone objective, you think?

Re:No, it's a stupid idea...

[stereoroid]

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.

Re:No, it's a stupid idea...

[Abreu]

As PakProtector said, its Terry Pratchett... and if you don't know pTerry, then I must say three things:

1 - The book quoted is comedy, although it is the kind of comedy that makes you think after making you laugh
2 - The atheist quoted is a Golem, made of clay, the fantasy equivalent of a robot (which is why his words all start with capital letters). As a general rule, atheists in the Discworld do not tend to live long, as they are frequently struck by lightning (even on a clear day) when they make their arguments. Dorfl the Golem, being made of clay, is immune to lightning, however.

3 - Please go and buy a book by Terry Pratchett, they are very good.

--

oh, and 4 - Pratchett most likely borrowed the argument of "the Atheist thinks of God constantly, albeit in terms of denial" from a very old Hindu story where a self-avowed atheist is sent directly in front of the face of God, as if he had spent his entire life praying. This was because, every time something good or something bad happened to him, the atheist would constantly remind himself that "gods don't exist" and therefore kept God in his mind constantly...

Re:No, it's a stupid idea...

[mysidia]

What's your point? Christianity isn't a religion either, by your definition. Being christian is simply the state of believing in one Jesus Christ. There is no dogma, no canon, no "book of how to behave", no punishment, no reward. Just faith in one thing.

Of course there are many christian churches. Some of them do have some of those components. The only dogma shared by all of them really have is that 'God exists' and 'Jesus christ existed. Some have a 'canon' some don't. Some have 'book of how to behave', some don't. Some have punishment/reward (just faith alone VS faith+good works debate), some don't.

None of these things you mentioned define religion.

Ever hear of the 1st church of Atheism ?

Apparently Atheists do have some sacraments, such as marriage.

The possibility of congretations also cannot be ruled out.

The possibility of an atheist church existing, that has all the characteristics you describe as "religion" is very real.

Just because they're atheist, doesn't mean they can't have a church with a dogma and a book of how to behave (E.g. bylaws of the organization).

They can have punishment too -- break the rules, and you get sanctions laid upon you by the church.

Religion doesn't define a person's outlook, morals, or ethics either.

There are lots of good christians with very poor morals/ethics, by objective standards. There are lots of bad christians and even atheists with very good morals/ethics, by objective standards.

Re:No, it's a stupid idea...

[vivaelamor]

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.

Re:No, it's a stupid idea...

[Rob the Bold]

atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Let's stir that up a little. Consider "not watching TV . . ." instead of "not collecting stamps"

Re:No, it's a stupid idea...

[The Wild Norseman]

You should add the irony of a being that definitely has a creator, denying the existence of such...

So it was really an irony golem and not a clay one?

Re:No, it's a stupid idea...

[IICV]

A further subtlety: the golem exists on the Discworld, where gods do exist. Earthling atheism is a completely irrational position in a universe where one can go out and have a drink with the God of Booze, and end up in a gutter with the Oh God of Hangovers. However, the kind of religious atheism the golem is explaining makes perfect sense in such a universe - after all, if it takes faith to believe in a god when there is no evidence for it, it must also take faith to disbelieve in any god when there is plenty of evidence for them.

Note that this does not apply to our universe.

Re:No, it's a stupid idea...

[AlamedaStone]

Does Terry Pratchett still sound like something very important?

If someone has read Pterry and mistaken it for Dostoevsky? Hell yes, that sounds like an important author to get to know.

Perhaps your misunderstanding derives from the mistaken impression that the GP was trying to aggrandize himself, when it is more likely he was celebrating a great (if accidental) complement to a beloved writer.

Think about what you just said, and try to see through it. Just because most people don't care about an author doesn't detract from his talent or insight.

Re:No, it's a stupid idea...

[EsbenMoseHansen]

Whoosh - someone doesn't get irony. Who else but Pratchett gives his characters names like "Visit"

Surely you mean "Visit-the-infidels-with-informative-pamphlets"?

Re:No, it's a stupid idea...

[Sique]

Actually it's Constable Dorfl talking in Capital Letters here.

Only the view of a theist.

[fyngyrz]

I don't deny anything. I simply don't believe, because I've never seen anything that has even the slightest weight in favor of the various claims of theism. The only thing I object to is the imposition of religious behaviors upon me by the religious. For instance, if they don't want to drink beer on Sunday, then by George, I think that's just fabulous. However, if I wish to drink beer on Sunday, and they move to stop me - for instance by forcing stores not to sell beer to me - well, now we have a problem, and they have just become my enemy by stepping on my liberties. You'll note this opposition arises without any attempt by me to deny the religious their beliefs, or the truth of them, etc.

Religion, like any other highly personal set of choices, should remain between one's self and other consenting adults. As soon as you force it, or material consequences of it, upon someone else, you're pond scum. And that's being unkind to pond scum. Irish lawmakers have today joined this damp, respect-free group.

Re:Only the view of a theist.

[lgftsa]

From their point of view, you are denying them their beliefs. They believe that drinking beer on a Sunday is a sin. 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. Responsibility, mind you, not right. Right just gives them the power, which they can choose not to wield, but responsibility forces them to act. They are bound to stop you, and any one assisting you in the consumption of beer along the chain of supply, otherwise they are allowing you all to sin in violation of your Creator's Will, and they themselves are entirely complicit in the sin.

This is why most people pay only lip service to their religions, and the ones who truly try to act faithfully are insane, in jail or dead.

This is also why it's useless to argue any points of religion. Any follower of a faith who is outspoken enough to debate will be impossible to reason with. Because they have faith. Faith trumps all. Logic, scientific evidence, physical the-tears-on-that-Madonna-statue-are-vegetable-oil evidence, common sense, anything. They know they are right, they have faith in their beliefs, and nothing you can say or do can change that.

Medicine men, shamans, priests, they have all had thousands of years to build on their predecessors techniques and psychology. They have an answer for everything, an excuse for anything. As society became more sophisticated and murdering someone to bring back Spring got a little dicey, they formed larger structures, took responsibility for reading and writing(handy, that), rewrote their holy books with more sophistication, and redefined and retranslated as necessary to keep up with progress.

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, but a bit of "oh, it's always said that, you were just misinterpreting the meaning" and it's done.

Re:Only the view of a theist.

[Shadow of Eternity]

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

Re:Only the view of a theist.

[lgftsa]

10 seconds on Google could have found the stories, but I'll do it for you. Behold the power of laziness!

vatican life other planets

The Vatican has constantly denied the existence of extraterrestrial life. Back when the Bible was written, planets were unknown. Earth is the center of creation, the sun and moon are "great lights" and stars were a calendar. When planets were discovered (and they finally admitted they existed), it suited the church to label them lifeless. They had to, as planets weren't mentioned in the Bible and any life out there puts a huge crimp is the "Earth is the center of creation" and "we are His children" self-serving egocentric shtick.

Of course, now that more and more exoplanets are being discovered, the probability of life being inferred on one or more of them through spectroscopy or other means is rising rapidly. So, they're revising their stance and going for a "it might be possible" position.

It's interesting to note that the church placed the Earth at the center of the solar system. There's nothing in the Bible about the orbits of the Sun, Moon and stars around the Earth, but they came up with a pretty good fit with their beliefs which took into account observable evidence. When the telescope and planets came along, they tried banning the new evidence, but eventually had to redefine the solar system with the Earth in it's proper place.

Similarly, the "no life on other planets" stance has had to be changed, but the church has learned from it's history. For quite a few years now, the hard line has been softening and various sections of the church have been pushing an uncommitted view. With no direction from the Bible about planets, though, they're got their job cut out from them. In this day and age, they can't just make stuff up, so they're going to have to do something pretty inventive to explain life on them.

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?

What else might he not know about?

What else might he be keeping secret?

Re:Only the view of a theist.

[Shadow of Eternity]

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.

Re:Only the view of a theist.

[Artifakt]

Your post is full of factual errors.

Back when the bible was written, planets were most certainly not unknown. The Hebrews even at the time they wrote the Torah were well aware of the same planets the Greeks, Romans and before them the Egyptians and Sumerians recognized.
The Vatican hasn't constantly denied the existence of extraterrestrial life. They started denying the existence of extraterrestrial life during the counter-reformation. (from about 1545). The Vatican itself existed for at least 400 years before that time (founding estimated 1210), and the Roman Catholic Church for much longer.
The most explicit offical denial came as part of the trial of Geordano Bruno in 1600. Bruno has often been described as a martyr to scientific thought, but it's worth noting that the church judges did not find Bruno's claims of a heliocentric cosmos or planets around other stars, or even life on such worlds, as grounds for his conviction and execution. The actual sentence cites Bruno's expression of pantheism as the only position actually, clearly heretical and worth execution.
The Vatican isn't just now revising its stance on extraterrestrial life due to exoplanet discoveries - It rejected the positions of the counter-reformation as early as 1648, presumably including the denial of the posibility of extra terrestrials along with the rest of the things it threw out. It officially specifically allowed blanket publication of opinions on the subject by priests to the general public before 1950, resulting in several popular books, for example by Ftr. A Zubak in 1954. LeMatre published arguments as early as 1927 in the same paper where he described the formation of the universe from a monobloc of infinite density (the earliest form of the Big Bang theory) although as a good Catholic he put some of his notes through church review first. By all accounts, it was a pro forma review, even with ideas as
spectacular as the Big Bang being proposed.

Note: I'm not a practicing Roman Catholic, nor was I raised as one.

Re:Only the view of a theist.

[shutdown -p now]

Back when the bible was written, planets were most certainly not unknown. The Hebrews even at the time they wrote the Torah were well aware of the same planets the Greeks, Romans and before them the Egyptians and Sumerians recognized.

Planets were known as "stars that move fast in weird paths". They weren't recognized for planets - celestial bodies of magnitude comparable to that of Earth, something that a human can walk, and something that can (as a concept) sustain life.

Re:Only the view of a theist.

[psnyder]

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

Re:Only the view of a theist.

[the_womble]

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.

This has to be...

[sconeu]

The most appropriate story for me to post in, if only for my sig.

Re:Blasphemy Law Goes Into Effect

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

More like Damn God!

BTW: Fuck the virgin mary in the ass and cum in her mouth, while jerking off on top of a cross.

Blasphemy...

[Dan541]

is a victimless crime, in Ireland.

Re:Blasphemy...

[TheLink]

How sure are you?

"It defines blasphemy as "publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defences permitted"."

It says ANY religion. So what religions are legally recognized in Ireland? How about Scientology? Is there are list somewhere?

There are a fair number of religions that have a high proportion of adherents who are easily outraged.

Re:Blasphemy...

[im_thatoneguy]

As the spokesman for Monosetians I want to voice our OUTRAGE caused by your demand for a list. Monosetians have few beliefs but asking for lists of things is shocking, abusive and insulting to our belief that all sets are of only one item. It's an obvious attempt to intentionally cause outrage amongst all of our members.

I'll see you in court sir!

Re:Blasphemy...

[Anonymous Coward]

I am an ancient Egyptian and my religion adores pyramids, you blasphemous clod!

Re:Blasphemy...

[TheLink]

> If you're and Ancient, how come you didn't ascend with the rest of them.

Like other slashdotters, he's still staying with his Mummy in the basement.

Whoosh

[copponex]

What? That's like saying if I truly didn't believe in Zeus, I wouldn't deny his existence and object to you demolishing my house to build him a temple.

If the people who believed in foolish things would keep their mouths shut and their hands out of public coffers, there'd be no reason for us to deny their silly fairy tales. They could ramble on in solitude like the people who are properly sent to a shrink when they claim to speak to invisible, imaginary beings.

Re:Whoosh

[PakProtector]

What? That's like saying if I truly didn't believe in Zeus, I wouldn't deny his existence and object to you demolishing my house to build him a temple.

If the people who believed in foolish things would keep their mouths shut and their hands out of public coffers, there'd be no reason for us to deny their silly fairy tales. They could ramble on in solitude like the people who are properly sent to a shrink when they claim to speak to invisible, imaginary beings.

Firstly, I do not see how not objecting to me demolishing your house to build a temple to Zeus follows from your lack of belief in him.

Not every form of religion is like fundamentalist Christianity or Islam. I honestly don't believe the Gods listen to anything I say, mainly because I never talk to them. I try to avoid one-sided conversations. The closest I come to prayer is seeing an Ambulance racing down the side of the road and thinking, "Mercury give you speed," or something else of the sort.

I do not believe that my religion is the only true religion -- such a statement in and of itself, to me, is nonsense. The Western World seems to love the dichotomy -- yes or no, right or wrong, black or white. There are is no black or white, merely some greys that are dingier than others.

I believe in a certain set of morals (which, coincidentally, have nothing to do with my religion, but merely how I would like to be treated by others), and I do not need to force others to act in that fashion. The only time I would ever and do restrain another human being from any chosen course of action is when their actions will form the cause-in-fact of harm to an unwilling third party.

I personally do not care if one wants to drink, smoke, bump-and-grind in a club, or anything else, as long as it does not violate the free will of another person. If your best friend enjoys being beaten bloody in the middle of the street, I shan't stop you from doing so -- unless I think you're about to kill him. I would most likely intervene in that instance.

For this reason, I hold such crimes as murder, rape, and to a lesser degree, certain kinds of theft, to be abhorrent. Not because physical and psychological harm are being done to another, but because they are committed against that person's will. The right to do as you please ends where other people's bodies begin. And the right to dictate other people's behaviors may only be invoked to stop them from violating another's security of their person and possessions.

I have only once in my life had an experience that I would honestly call a theophany, but as I was somewhat in the process of nearly dying from alcohol poisoning at the time, I fully accept that a much more likely explanation is that it was simply a hallucination. Even if it was a hallucination, which it very likely was, that does not lessen, to me, its impact, nor the import and significance of the event.

It is possible for a man to be religious and at the same time believe in minding his own damn business. I will work out my own salvation (or lack thereof, as one's religious leanings may lean) with diligence, and you can do the same. As long as you do not interfere with my freedom to do as I wish as long as I harm no one else, I shall extend to you the same respect and courtesy.

This, of course, extends to the freedom to believe as one wishes. There is only one thing in this world, other than harming one against their will, that I am violently opposed to: Intolerance. I will not tolerate any form of intolerance (and this is the paradox that makes all thing possible.) You are free to believe as you choose. But if your belief demands that I may not believe as I choose, be that based on a religious or areligious belief, then you and I have a problem.

The same freedom that allows you to not believe in any deity is the same freedom that allows anyone else to believe in one, should they so choose. Religion is a tool, and properly wielded, it can do great good. But lik

Does this qualify as blasphemy?

[hyades1]

I figure God must love child molesters, since he made so many of them priests.

Why not?

[decoy256]

Well, no one ever said it was an "organized" religion, but what is a religion anyway? Now, I know I'm going to metaphorically be stoned for saying this, but follow the reasoning...

From Dictionary.com "Religion" is defined as:
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

(The other definitions are quite redundant... "A set of beliefs", "A group of people who share a set of beliefs", etc... So, we'll just skip them. Of course, someone could always craft a definition that is carefully worded to specifically exclude atheism, but that doesn't seem intellectually honest to me.)

Is atheism a "set of beliefs"? Of course. Namely, it is the belief in the non-existence of a god. Does this set of beliefs concern the "cause, nature and purpose" of the universe? The "cause" and "nature" part are given by science and the "purpose" part is simply a negative... there is no "purpose" as theists would understand it. Notice the rest of the definition uses words like "especially", "usually" and "often", which means that those items are typical, but not necessary. So religion does not necessarily require a "superhuman agency" or "ritual observances" or even a "moral code"... most do, but it clearly is not necessary.

Now, I'm not saying that atheism is the same as theism, clearly they are not. But perhaps we are drawing unnecessary distinctions because of a Pavlovian response to the word "religion". Who ever said that religion=theism? It may usually carry that connotation, but must it? When we look at the word "religion" antiseptically, what is there to recoil from?

A religion is nothing more than a set of beliefs and we all have beliefs about a great many things. Religion is merely the set of beliefs about the "cause, nature, and purpose" of the universe. So? We all have beliefs about that. Atheism is merely the religion that does not choose to rely on "superhuman agency or agencies" to explain the "cause, nature, and purpose" of the universe.

Re:Why not?

[Bigjeff5]

If a set can be the empty set, then anything is a religion. But that'd be silly. But atheism is the empty set. It is a lack of beliefs in god(s). That is not a belief, but a lack of belief. And to call atheism a religion is silly.

It's not wrong to specifically not include something in a definition - the definition of the primes specifically says 1 is not a prime.

It's actually not a lack of belief. A belief is essentially a strong conviction about something you cannot prove. Obviously there is no proof there is no god, but you certainly believe there is no God. Make your sentance active instead of active while maintaining the same meaning and your argument fails.

The Agnostic has a lack of belief, an Athiest believes in a negative. Frankly, Athiesm is far more of a religion than Agnosticism is. At least they are brave enough to admit that they just plain don't know, and tend to not really care either.

In reality, Athiests commit the inverse of the exact same logical fallacy that believers in a god must commit. You cannot hold either position without commiting the negative proof fallacy. The version that believers in a god commit is that if a premis cannot be proven false, it must be true. The version Athiests commit is that if a premise cannot be proven true then it must be false.

Both lines of reasoning are fallacious. They are also both grounded in a firm belief that a premis must be true or false with no proof to back up either side. Both sides will use the exact same evidence to prove their point, but neither side has any actual proof. The Athiests are in a particular bind on this one, because it is impossible to prove a negative. The only ones who could ever even potentially prove their case are those who believe in a god. Some might even say that takes a bit of extra faith on the part of the Athiest, given that fact. It also tends to breed a lot of zealotry in Atheists, I believe. Most Athiests I know of seem to be pretty evangelical about it anyway.

Only the Agnostics take a logical stance when it comes to god, and simply state "I dunno" and go on with their lives.

For the record, I believe in a god, the Christian God to be exact. "But wait!" you say, "you just argued that your belief system is based on a logical fallacy!" Well of course it is, that's what makes it a belief. I'm also careful not to commit the fallicist's fallacy - that is, just because an argument is fallacious does not mean the conclusion itself is false.

Re:Why not?

[decoy256]

There is a substantive difference between "no belief in god" and "belief in no god". The prior is an absence of belief and makes no claim as to the existence of a god. The latter is an affirmative statement of the non-existence of a god. The prior is agnosticism, the latter atheism.

For some reason you are tying belief with god. This belies an inaccurate understanding of the term "belief". Look it up. Few definitions of "belief" refer to deity.

Re:Why not?

[nattt]

No beliefs are not about things which we cannot prove. I believe the earth is reasonably spherical is a belief about something which is proven. You're confusing faith with belief. Faith is what you have about things which you cannot prove, beliefs are things we hold true no matter what their proof status.

Agnostics are making a positive statement about the limits of knowledge. They are explicitly saying that knowledge has some limits, and that god(s) are things that lie beyond those limits. Although rare, it's perfectly possible to have an agnostic theist, although I'd suspect most atheists are also agnostics because agnosticism is much more a statement about the limits of knowledge.

As you know there are two basic statements of atheism - one is a lack of belief in god(s) and the other a statement that says that god(s) do not exist. Of course, the second contains the first, but the first does not contain the second.

There are so many things that we all have a lack of belief in. I'm sure you don't believe in gnarbles (not knowing even what gnarbles are) and you are therefore a agnarblist. I could invent a very long list of nonesense names of "things" and you'd lack a belief in all of them. You don't even consider that you have an unfounded belief in a negative when you say "I don't believe in gnarbles", and you'd be right. Just as I am right when I don't have a belief in your particular god or any other particular god anyone will invent or has invented.

Re:Why not?

[AthanasiusKircher]

The Agnostic has a lack of belief, an Athiest believes in a negative.

Frankly, you don't know what you're talking about. You discuss the "logic" of the claims of theism, atheism, and agnosticism, but it seems that you don't actually know the logical consequences of what's going on. You're in line with some of the connotations that people think these words have, but if you want to have a rigorous argument about the logic of belief systems, read up about what you're talking about first.

Part of the difficulty is because of the ambiguity used in the word "atheism," which can mean non-belief, or it can mean a positive belief that there is no god. Those are two different claims (sometimes referred to as "weak atheism" and "strong atheism"). And you obviously don't know what agnosticism is.

Here's a simple example of arguments that state a view on whether it will rain next Thursday.


THEISM: "I believe that it will rain next Thursday."
STRONG ATHEISM: "I believe that it will not rain next Thursday."
AGNOSTICISM: "I believe that we cannot know whether it will rain next Thursday." (Due to lack of data, or some other problem with epistemology.)
WEAK ATHEISM: "I don't know whether it will rain next Thursday."

Theism is a positive statement of belief, strong atheism is a negative statement of belief, and agnosticism is a statement that we cannot logically believe either positively or negatively. Agnosticism is thus also making a specific claim about the state of knowledge and what can or cannot be deduced from it.

Agnosticism is not simply stating "I dunno" and going on with our lives. It is an epistemological claim about the evidence for a god. Stating "I dunno" is a fourth position that is not theism, strong atheism, or agnosticism. Most people who actually argue about the logic of these positions call the "I dunno" crowd "weak atheists" because they don't really believe, but they aren't making a negative assertion either. They simply don't believe either way.

In sum, there are more possible logical positions than you acknowledge. These are the most common ones.

Re:Jehovah!

[Bodhammer]

Matthias: Look, I don't think it should be a sin, just for saying "Jehovah".
[Everyone gasps]
Jewish Official: You're only making it worse for yourself!
Matthias: Making it worse? How can it be worse? Jehovah! Jehovah! Jehovah!
Jewish Official: I'm warning you! If you say "Jehovah" one more time (gets hit with rock) RIGHT! Who did that? Come on, who did it?
Stoners: She did! She did! (suddenly speaking as men) He! He did! He!
Jewish Official: Was it you?
Stoner: Yes.
Jewish Official: Right...
Stoner: Well you did say "Jehovah. "
[Crowd throws rocks at the stoner]
Jewish Official: STOP IT! STOP IT! STOP IT RIGHT NOW! STOP IT! All right, no one is to stone _anyone_ until I blow this whistle. Even... and I want to make this absolutely clear... even if they do say, "Jehovah. "
[Crowd stones the Jewish Official to death]

Dumb, dumb, dumb

[FrozenGeek]

For the record, I am an evangelical Christian and this strikes me as something that can only end in tears. When will politicians (and, more importantly, voters) realize that trying to protect feelings only undermines free speech and, ultimately, democracy? We need our leaders to tell the cry-babies to grow up.

Re:This should be good

[digitig]

Most points for the biggest Blasphemy in the least amount of words.

"Slashdot is an RIAA shill"?

Re:Catch me now!

[TheCarp]

They all breed enough as it is, you don't need to encourage them.

Re:Catch me now!

[Foobar of Borg]

fuck catholics, fuck protestants, fuck jews, fuck muslims

I already have! The protestants are the worst lays. They keep complaining.

Archiving your sig

[jonaskoelker]

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!

An example of what you say...

[The Famous Brett Wat]

Anything that is legally blasphemous and arouses public or state ire will be.

Blasphemy was the charge that got Jesus crucified.

Re:A more sobering idea

[fractoid]

That's actually very close to the view of David Attenborough:

My response is that when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that's going to make him blind. And [I ask them], 'Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child's eyeball? Because that doesn't seem to me to coincide with a God who's full of mercy'.

It's all just proof...

[okmijnuhb]

It's all just proof to me that religion is a form of insanity, or mental impairment, inability for objective free thought, or rational analysis, or failure and inability to reach logical conclusions.
How far of a leap is it really, from believing, without proof, of a magic being in the sky, to believing that the dismembered body parts of albinos in Africa possess magic powers? Or that suicide bombing will land you in paradise? Or that getting on your knees and begging a supposed omnipotent being for help, would yield results? The same being, mind you, who impotently, or indifferently observed the extermination of 12,000,000,000 humans in the concentration camps of Europe.

My favorite blasphemous statement.

[bkk_diesel]

My favorite blasphemous statement: "God is incredible."

Proof of god's non-existence

[knarf]

Imagine the following scenario: you are sitting outside on a log in the snow. There is a nice January sun shining down on you, the temperature is a crisp -8 and you are minding your own business. Suddenly someone comes along and shouts out loud 'YOU DO NOT EXIST'. What would your reaction be?

The most likely reaction would be one of scorn and ridicule, right? Being secure in the fact of your existence you would not feel the need for others around you to confirm your existence. You KNOW you exist so what do you care what others say?

Now imagine you are..... GOD. Big Capital Letter GOD, creator of the universe (or at least separator of light and darkness if you want to follow the most recent translations) and everything that moves and lives and breathes. Your denizens are like microbes on a human's skin, so many of your creation walks and crawls and creeps and slithers around that blue planet. What would you care if one of those creatures, one of those microbes, proclaims you non-existence? Would you clamor for confirmation of it to those other creatures, those other microbes? Of course not. You are GOD! You don't need confirmation of anything! You are the past, the present and the future, everything moves only by your grace, you are omnipotent and omniscient.

Why, then, do these religious nutcases claim that it is a criminal act to claim the aformentioned?

The only possible explanation is that they are not sure at all that this deity they proclaim to believe in actually exists. They will do anything to keep up appearances, anything to keep their mind-construct from failing. Anyone who shakes the tree has to be stopped before they fall out. Anyone who points out that the book they read is actually an allegorical work of fiction has to be punished.

By trying to stop anyone from claiming god does not exist they prove that god does, in fact, not exist.

This isn't what the Irish people want

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

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.

Pope declares "unique copyright" on child abuse

[David Gerard]

The Vatican® has stated that the rape© of children by Catholic priests is protected by a "special and unique" copyright, and anyone attempting to discuss the matter will be sued, excommunicated and declared a Suppressive Person.

"Recent years have witnessed a great increase of affection and esteem for the person of the Holy Father, L. Benedict Ratzinger®," said the statement. "As such, any person or organisation seeking to name, defame or allude to His Holiness®, any of his Bishops or Priests, or any activities of any of said persons in any capacity, shall be deemed to have violated the Sacred Covenant of Berne, to be a 'no case gain' Suppressive Person and to be duly excommunicated and sued into atomic dust. ALWAYS ATTACK, NEVER DEFEND."

Evidence only recently brought to light, "which we can't show you, it's copyright," apparently demonstrates that playwright William Shakespeare was secretly Catholic. "So we're claiming copyright in everything he did too. And Francis Bacon. And the Earl of Oxford."

The Church's lawyers have worked hard to defend their intellectual property rights on such creative works as those of the Irish priests upon their young charges that only recently came to light. "Our determination to protect and preserve the rights to view, discuss or know about these three-dimensional kinetic performance works, and our tour support for the priests to take these works 'on the road' to new parishes, demonstrates the unimpeachable sincerity of our stance — firmly behind the artists. Legs wide, of course."

The Pope himself has been appalled at the reaction to his recent decision to beatify Adolf Hitler, and described his visit to the Pius XII memorial as "an upsetting encounter with cruelty and senseless hatred. I didn't like it much either."

The law is to protect the Church

[1mck]

With all the people coming forward about the abuses and rapes that the Church has perpetrated, to me this law is to protect the Church. The people coming forward were getting too close to the higher ups, and people in high positions were being implicated in this. Now, they can come into your home in Ireland for anything they want under the pretense of this law. I think their tourism is going to take a hit on this one, eh?