Anne Marie Waters - Speaking out against Blasphemy Laws 2/6 World Atheist Convention 2011

[petphotog]

There is no reason to promote such a law as the only one to be offended is a supernatural being. And as such, they should be able to deal with the person without others getting involved.

ANY person that enforces the law of a supernatural being displays the abject weakness of that being in not having the ability to punish those that offend it.

OR, perhaps, maybe this supernatural being has decided to show mercy, which, if a adherent to this being kills someone, they violate this beings will.

[gergsar]

I agree with her, religion will become extinct, given enough time...

[MagicTellaVision]

Long live the Born Again Pagan Celts ; )

[JakersNI]

"No right to indoctrinate children..."

It’s ironic that humani is happy to have children indoctrinated with its own worldview that there is no God. So, by what moral standards does humani dictate what churches etc are allowed to do? Again, ironically, utilitarian morality was used as the basis to ‘create’ a better society through eugenics under ‘scientific’ social Darwinism, influencing Hitler: ‘From Darwin to Hitler’ by Richard Weikart. These are tired old arguments.

[richo61]

@JakersNI "It’s ironic that humani is happy to have children indoctrinated with its own worldview that there is no God." Or it would be - if it were true. As it is its just a very ordinary lie. And a failure to answer the argument. Arguing *against* freedom is hard - I don't envy your task.

Secondly social Darwinism isn't science - its pseudo scientific bullshit.

Thirdly they are tired old arguments - and the lack of any rational response from the enemies of free thought is also very tiresome.

[JakersNI]

@richo61 “Or it would be - if it were true.” Are we on the same page here? Can you explain that phrase? I’m arguing that humani is substituting one worldview for another. Also, how exactly am I arguing against free thought? Coming from a western society that has its basis in biblical morality, I encourage it.

“enemies of free thought”? Is this how you view religious people? Do you believe that Theists don’t have the ‘freedom’ to question and only atheists do?



[richo61]

@JakersNI "can you explain that phrase"

Sure: Wanting to not indoctrinate children with religious beliefs is NOT the same thing as wanting to indoctrinate children with godlessness.

That is: it isn't true. It is a complete misrepresentation of your opponents position.

Simple really.

[JakersNI]

@richo61 Teaching that there is no God IS the same as teaching them that there is – substituting one worldview for another with your pseudo-scientific nonsense stemming from your Sceintism.

It’s ironic that you call vocal Theists ‘obnoxious’. Out of all the belief groups, atheists believe they’re the only ones with ‘reason’ on their side and can dictate modern morality (ref: Anne Marie). And before you try the usual ‘atheism isn’t a belief’, it is; you hold to it religiously.

[Strangerinasland]

@JakersNI Evidently, you don't know the difference between teaching & indoctrinating. If you have reason on your side, simply prove there is a god, prove it is the god you believe in, prove the intentions of it, prove the morality of it. Prove that all babies are born evil yet responsible for that evil nature & deserve the worst imaginable punishment for what they never asked for. The worst nastiest cruelest morals I've heard of come from religion.

Atheism is not a belief.

[JakersNI]

@Strangerinasland If "Atheism is not a belief" then what is it? “Evidently, you don't know the difference between teaching & indoctrinating”. Yes I do; there’s no point using ad hominem attacks. If you raise your kids as an atheist parent you’re indoctrinating them, whether you consider it ‘indoctrination’ or not – to accept an atheistic viewpoint uncritically as their basis of interpreting everything around them. Also, what kind of proofs would you accept?

[JakersNI]

@Strangerinasland “The worst nastiest cruellest morals I've heard of come from religion.” The reason you have the freedom to say that is because of the West’s moral basis in the Bible. By what moral standards do you judge what is ‘cruel’ and what isn’t? Is your morality better than others? What gives Anne Marie the right to dictate, as an atheist, how religions should ‘behave’ (@5.55)? Her own moral framework? This is the hypocrisy of humanism: moral relativists dictating moral absolutes.

[Bumblybee256]

@JakersNI Em no, we do not derive our morals from the bible. We are moral (most of us) in spite of it, not because of it. Furthermore, the 'morals' in the bible were not newly created with the writing of that book. They evolved in our species.

And Anne Marie insists only that religions don't apply their texts to those who don't believe in them. Your problem with that is?

[JakersNI]

@Bumblybee256 Melvyn Bragg recently did a brief overview on the BBC of how the King James Bible impacted Western society and was the foremost influence in modern democracy. Watch the BBC interview with him on Youtube. Your morals do stem from biblical principals, Why should altruism be good? Anne Mare is not simply 'insisting', she's declaring what religions should not be allowed to do. Again, according to who's standards? Ironically, by making that comment she's forcing her views on religion.

[Bumblybee256]

@JakersNI No they don't. Which biblical principles would those be? How do you pick the good from the bad? Using criteria that lies outside the bible- innate, evolved morality.

She's declaring what religions should not be able to do based on how they affect other people, that's not forcing something on the religious.

[JakersNI]

@Bumblybee256 Did you watch the Melvyn Bragg interview? You'r evolved morality reminds me of this conversion:

Jaron Lanier (atheist): ‘There’s a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.’

Richard Dawkins: ‘All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth.’

‘Evolution: The dissent of Darwin,’ Psychology Today 30(1):62, Jan-Feb 1997.

[Bumblybee256]

@JakersNI I don't see what that has to do with anything. Dawkin's is saying it's tough if people are uncomfortable with the truth, what's your point?

Now you're deciding on where you'd like morality to come from rather than where it actually comes from.

[JakersNI]

@Bumblybee256 With regards to Anne Marie, or course she is forcing her views by saying they should not be allowed to share their beliefs with others; it's an impingement of their freedom. Again, who is she to say what religions should or should not be allowed to do? What makes her moral standard the right one that religions should abide by? If religious people disagree with her, who's right? Assuming you're an atheist, what if I was to tell you you're not allowed to share your views?

[Bumblybee256]

@JakersNI Nope, she says nothing against 'sharing beliefs', she is simply against people's personal religious beliefs being made LAW.

I'm not interested in sharing my personal views with you, I'm interested in being left alone to live my life in freedom without having other's religions affecting me- for example, why should my reproductive rights be affected by christians who oppose them? Should I let my rights be removed because others have the right to do that to me?

[JakersNI]

@Bumblybee256 I take your point about law. The blasphemy laws have been used to persecute Christians more than any other group. The Dawkins quote is how evolution does not lead to morality - it is a vacuum. How can something amoral lead to morality, where the underlying message has always been survival of the fittest? How does altruism fit in? How do you believe morality has evolved?

[Bumblybee256]

@JakersNI well, actually the blasphemy law in ireland covers christianity. I don't think you can make christians out to be the victims.The comment about a 'vacuum' makes no sense. You cannot brand a process of nature as 'immoral', the process itself is not conscious and it is not an 'underlying message', it is what it is and not liking it does not make it false. Morality has evolved in humans because we are social creatures, it's one reason why our species has been so successful (contd)

[JakersNI]

@Bumblybee256 I said evolution was amoral, but immoral - without any concept of morality at all. Therefore, according to your stance, our ideas of right and wrong are nothing more than evolutionary conditioning - whatever it takes to make the species survive? If that is the case, why should they be trusted? To use a current example, should we care about those suffering in the famine in Somalia? If so, why? How do you then judge what is right and wrong?

[Bumblybee256]

@JakersNI I fail to see how the fact that they are evolved denigrates them in any way, yet that's the automatic position you take 'nothing more' etc etc. No, it's what makes a stable society- which includes the psychological wellbeing and happiness of the members. It's not that we 'should' care, we simply do, because it's innate. It's not an obligation.

Who's 'they? Your alternative is a book, why should it be trusted? What about the misogny, human sacrifice and slavery?

[JakersNI]

@Bumblybee256 So, you do believe in moral absolutes then, that we all share and are innate in us all.ie. compassion? You believe that out random mutations we happened to evolve, and out of that we randomly evolved a sense of right and wrong? Who says the psychological wellbeing and happiness of a society's members is (or should be) the reason for morality? Again, according to who's standards? If someone disagrees with you about that, who's right?

[Bumblybee256]

@JakersNI Is that having moral absolutes? Obviously in complex animals like ourselves a great deal of our behaviour relies on our parents teaching us the social norms that work, so it can go wrong. I don't believe in mnay moral absolutes, no.

You can see using the bible that our morality is evolved given that we no longer follow many things in the bible.

Clearly you haven't read a word I have said or you don't understand natural selection, it is NOT random. (contd)

[JakersNI]

@Bumblybee256 "I don't believe in mnay moral absolutes, no." Then do you believe in any moral absolutes? Going back a step though, where did this force (or law) to always seek the survival of the species come from?

[Bumblybee256]

@JakersNI Nobody says so, that's how we've evolved, because that is what worked. Those rules gave stable societies (or ones more stable than others). Disagrees about what? When people have disagreements they have debates etc and put forward arguments.

The golden rule (do unto others as you would have done unto you) was thought up by human brains.........which evolved. And the preservation of body autonomy (from which many morals and laws spring) is a priority for all animals.

[JakersNI]

@JakersNI Also, there really wasn't any point to start throwing insults. Of course I've been reading what you've saying.

[Bumblybee256]

@JakersNI Similar behaviour, though not to the same extent, can be seen in other social species. Societies with morals (for eg, no killing) are simply more likely to be stable enough to survive, it's nothing more complicated than that. Is altruism truly selfless? If not it's hardly a mystery either as other animals display helping behaviour. Altruism is thought to be an evolutionary throwback to the days when anyone you helped was likely to be kin and you were therefore likely to benefit.

[Strangerinasland]

@JakersNI You believe in imaginary fiends with magic powers yet you accuse someone of pseudoscience nonsense. That is a great example of obnoxious.

Religion is tired old obnoxious childish yet cruel foolish fairy tales. Do you still believe in santa claus, tooth fairy, leprechauns, unicorns, elves & Mother Goose? WHY can't you grow up & face reality?

Atheism is not a belief.

[richo61]

@JakersNI "how exactly am I arguing against free thought?"

You are arguing FOR the indoctrination of school children with religious mumbo jumbo.

And no, not ALL religious people are for the teaching of religion in public schools - but a noisy loud obnoxious minority is strongly pushing for it. I oppose them/you whenever I can.

[ourworld287]

from about 5:15 onward says it all! At the end of the video Anne Marie Waters puts it so very well, "give some objective evidence, god said doesnt cut it". Good job!!!