Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Should Atheist Ireland rebrand itself?
Comments
-
I see that you are picking different criteria to judge each name. Okay, let's go with that.Your list comprises of the following;
So it is a question of size, age and investment, then? Not anything inherently wrong with the name Atheist Ireland?- Very well established brand names that are recognisable based on their size, age, and investment made in their development (e.g. the Newspapers, Political parties, and Churches).
Yet they use the word 'The' which implies, does it not, that they are the only, or the definitive, 'Labour' party or 'Green' party? Are you not concerned that people might think they represent all people who share those political leanings?- Organisations which include words that have more than one well understood and accepted meaning. Labour and Green for example include references to the type of politics they represent in the major dictionaries.
Okay, so combined with your first set of criteria, does this mean that size, age and, investment, a huge brand and massive audiences will overcome any concerns about the inherent accuracy of the name?- Incomplete names, such as Manchester United, where I'm guessing you mean Manchester United F.C. Even then these are huge brands with massive audiences.
When does that kick in, and how can you reach it without starting with the name and building the brand around it?
For example, when Newton Heath Football Club changed their name to Manchester United Football Club, when they didn't have a huge brand or a massive audience, would you have considered that an inappropriate name at that time?
You can't judge a book by its cover- Book titles, such as lord of the Flies, where the title is typically meant to pique interest rather than represent content.
Again, they both use the word 'The', which implies that they are the only, or the definitive, group of that type.- Smaller less well known organisations, where the title does in fact convey the principal activity of that organisation. e.g. The Humanist Association of Ireland, The Irish Architectural Archive.
Why would you make that assumption?I'm just assuming The Humanist Association of Ireland are broadly representative humanism in this country, and that their use of the word humanism for example agrees with common dictionary definitions.
There are several dictionary definitions of humanism, and none are definitive.
Here's the OED definition:A rationalist outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters.
1.1 (often Humanism) A Renaissance cultural movement which turned away from medieval scholasticism and revived interest in ancient Greek and Roman thought.
1.2 (Among some contemporary writers) a system of thought criticized as being centred on the notion of the rational, autonomous self and ignoring the conditioned nature of the individual.
Do you seriously think, or do you seriously think that anybody else would think, that the Humanist Association of Ireland represents all people in Ireland with a rationalist outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters, never mind a Renaissance cultural movement which turned away from medieval scholasticism and revived interest in ancient Greek and Roman thought?
That's right. Atheist Ireland doesn't have the resources of any of the above, and doesn't have the more overtly misleading names that some of them have.As a name, Atheist Ireland isn't really comparable to any of the above.
I'm sure you could construct a more charitable interpretation of Atheist Ireland's choice of name, along the same lines as you have done with these other groups.0 -
-
^^^ Good point. Does the Irish Times represent all Irish people? Can foreigners legitimately feel excluded?
It doesn't but everyone already knows intuitively what the Irish Times is. They don't really take any notice of the word 'Irish' in it. However, let's go back a second. Suppose it's your first time hearing the name 'Irish Times' or 'To Kill a Mocking Bird' and you know absolutely nothing about them prior to hearing that name. What would your initial impressions be? Initial impressions are long lasting. I think it's fair to assume that the Irish Times would assumed be to an Irish focused paper. TKAMB would be assumed to a guide to killing a bird and 'Atheist Ireland' would be assumed to be representing atheists in Ireland.
Given the ignorance that is at play with the concept of atheism the name 'Atheist Ireland' most certainly isn't helpful for first impressions.
You shouldn't but people do. It would very naive to ignore this fact.Michael Nugent wrote: »You can't judge a book by its cover0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
And as you will see form that discussion, I disagree with you, and I outlined why.
It's not about defining positions. The point that I am arguing against is that you cannot tell anything about what a person believes, other than that they do not believe in gods, from knowing that they re an atheist. My counterargument is not that all atheists have the same beliefs about everything, nor is it that you can tell everything about what an atheist believes from knowing they are an atheist. What I am arguing is that you can tell *some* things that an atheist believes, or does not believe, and that those things are significant enough to be described as a foundational world view, particularly in a world where most people believe the opposite.You can't properly define a given position out of an infinite number of possible positions simply by excluding any finite number of known positions and considering what's left.
Yes, but let's carry that analogy through further, because we are talking about beliefs rather than locations. If everyone in Dublin believed that the world is flat, and everyone outside Dublin believed that the world is round, then could I tell anything about your beliefs by the fact that you are not in Dublin? Yes, I could. I could tell that you disbelieve anything that necessarily follows from believing that the world is flat, and that you are at least open to believing anything that necessarily follows from believing that the world is round.For example, if you asked me 'where are you' and I said 'not in Dublin', that in no way tells you where I am, it merely says where I am not.The word atheist is exclusively defined as someone who does not believe in a God or gods. It has had this exclusive definition for over 200 years.- Firstly, no it is not, and
- Secondly, even if it was, what is so magical about 200 years, and
- Thirdly, even if it was, there would still be other ideas that necessarily follow from that.
That's a different issue. I am talking about ideas that necessarily follow from atheism, which are more foundational than what I describe as Ethical Atheism.If you want to tack on some ancillary meaning you need to qualify the word, as you have done previously using Ethical Atheism.
Even the definition you are using there provides enough nuance to fill another twenty pages of discussion.At any given point in time, a person can either believe in God/gods/supernatural woo, not believe in it, or be unsure. That's about as far as the meaning of the word atheist goes.
.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Michael Nugent wrote: »Even the definition you are using there provides enough nuance to fill another twenty pages of discussion.
Indeed. I found an interesting page here which includes a larger number of links to most of the formal definitions for atheism. The section listing definitions of atheism for modern atheists pretty much concurs with my understanding, specificallyIf you look up 'atheism' in the dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly many people understand atheism in this way. Yet many atheists do not, and this is not what the term means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In Greek 'a' means 'without' or 'not' and 'theos' means 'god.' From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative veiew, characterized by the absence of belief in God.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
Advertisement