If only atheists weren't so iniquitous.. Kidding.

Have a nice weekend!

Thanks for being reasonable Darwin. I can understand your view on how faith might be moot, but for others it might not be if they admit they simply don't know..I'm using the term faith in terms of confidence in a belief. (which comes within the definition of the word).

::

Please see reply.

*********************

Hi Patsy,

I would appreciate your clarification on some comments that I read were attributed to you from your recent discussion on Newstalk with Sean Moncrieff. I read about that discussion here: http://www.darwin.ie/. The title of the post is, "Patsy McGarry Needs to Do His Homework".

In particular the author of the blog, Darwin seems to think you are ill informed on atheism as you made a comment that "it takes too much faith to be an atheist". Darwin is disappointed that you do not know what you are talking about because according to the article, "it takes no faith whatsoever to be an atheist".

I left a few comments under the name "FME". I am being presumptuous as to your reasons for commenting that being an atheist takes too much faith, but I hazard a few guesses. One being that it takes more certainty to be an atheist than an agnostic.

I would really appreciate any feedback you have to offer on why you made those comments as being the Irish Times religious affairs correspondent I would imagine you are quite informed on these matters.

Thanking you for your time and clarification.

Yours Sincerely,
'FME'

***************

'FME',
Sorry for the delay in getting back. I am up to my eyes.

The arrogance of some atheists can be every bit as off-putting, and as inappropriate, as that of any other fundamentalist and usually indicates a lack of intellectual subtlety/nuance. It has more to do with personality than conviction. `Darwin', the blogger not the original, would appear to fit neatly into that category.

In a culture such as ours when you are confronted from an early age – or were – with unquestioned acceptance of the `reality' of God you are expected to either accept such `reality', disprove it, or plead ignorance.

The very word `atheist' illustrates this. It is derived from the Greek word `theos' meaning `god'. So atheism is itself predicated on the concept of divinity. It could not exist without it.

Atheists dismiss that concept. Where `Darwin' is concerned the very concept which defines his outlook is not necessary, which is illogical. He also defines words such as `atheism' and `agnostic' to suit himself. A bit like `Humpty Dumpty' in `Through the Looking Glass'.

Neither the existence or non-existence of divinity can be proven. It requires faith to assume either position. And in our culture – as in all cultures since man began to think (because no civilisation has yet existed without belief in some sort of divinity) – you either reject divinity or accept it. You cannot be `divinity-neutral'.

In most cultures divinity is a given. It becomes the faith of the majority. Rejection, becomes the faith of a minority. Then there are those like myself who "plead ignorance."

As an agnostic I accept it is not possible to prove or disprove the existence of a divinity.

I just don't know and have learned to live, humbly (I hope) and comfortably, with my ignorance.

With very best regards,
Patsy McGarry

***********************

My only point was I didn't think McGarry was mistaken saying it takes faith to be an Atheist.

I've heard it said an agnostic is an atheist who lacks the courage of their convictions. So if an atheist has more certainty of their convictions than the agnostic.. I think that's what McGarry was referring to when he said it takes more faith to be an atheist.

In terms of labels and definitions. Personally I think it's a load of bollocks. There's positive atheism, negative atheism, agnostic atheism, and probably atheistic agnosticism. There are a range of positions held by atheists, so you can't say something contradicts the true definition.

In terms of atheism appearing more sensible and logical than religion. That's easy. It's hard to prove a negative (i.e prove to me that God doesn't exist) but you can rule out a proposition entirely (i.e. you can prove a negative) if you use the god of religion with it's logical inconsistencies.

Just to clarify I'm not religious in any way. Thanks for the information on the biscuit.

But yes, I agree that atheism does appear more sensible and logical, I wonder why.

If I could summarise your points: it takes faith to be an atheist, but it takes none to be a believer–or something.

You said you don't like labels. It appears you don't like basic definitions either. In that case, it becomes impossible to usefully discuss anything.

::

I thought that was just symbolism in any case. Maybe I'm mistaken.

Atheism will always look more sensible/logical than religion but there is a whole other spectrum of believers who aren't religious. It's easy to look at child's play and call it child's play.

Now there's a sensible belief for you.

You can believe in a creator without having any religious beliefs. Likewise you can have no beliefs in a creator but not call yourself an Atheist.

It seems more like an asserted disbelief in a creator and not only disbelief but knowledge that there is no such thing, if you compare it to fairies and Santa Claus.. but that's fine. That's your view. I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm just saying some people don't see it in the same light. There is a doubt for some that the certainty of our fundamental origins and existence is all chance and the laws of nature are self determining and always have been, that nothing was set in motion. i.e it takes a bit more surety for them (faith?) to classify themselves as a Atheist.
I don't see much difference between Jesus and Santa Claus either. Both were good men.. liked kids/ the needy a lot. Both were real people that lived. Santa being St Nicholas. Jesus being himself.

And if he says 'it takes too much faith…' I certainly don't have to 'just accept' that. It is entirely possible for people to be wrong, and McGarry in this instance is simply wrong about the nature of non-belief.

Besides atheism never denies the possibility of god(s), it only recognises the lack of evidence. Just like James Randi would be delighted if he were shown proof of the paranormal–but that has never happened, thus he does not believe it exists. If you're a chicken, show us the eggs.

I disagree that everything is subjective, suggesting that all viewpoints are somehow equally valid. That is not a sensible position to take. Religious practices often require people to be stoned or beheaded for non-existent crimes like blasphemy. Can we condemn it, or is that just another valid viewpoint?

But does atheism 'deserve' respect? I don't think it can be faulted for its simplicity, consistency and logic, which cannot be said for any religion. Moreover atheism is not really a philosophy or a set of beliefs. It's the application of basic science. Got a claim? Prove it. That should be worthy of respect.

As for respect being some kind of two-way street, that seems like a complete non sequitor. I can't understand why if the scientific method is accorded respect purely on its own merits, it automatically follows that, say, the crazy Mormon story gets respect.

For the record, I genuinely don't see much difference between Jesus and Santa Claus.

::

It's all subjective isn't it. You don't decide what Atheism is on the whole for everybody. If for the Irish Times religious affairs correspondent it takes too much faith to be an Atheist, then you'll just have to accept that. Respect is a two way street it seems. Anyways that video isn't really relevant as it's about all sorts of unfounded religious beliefs. McGarry just said it takes too much faith to be an Atheist. I'm countering your disagreement of that. For him it's a leap of faith to think a creator is comparable to Santa Claus. To know for sure.

And that's my favourite comment in a religious discussion. I.e Mine. Said with a straight face.