Should Atheist Ireland rebrand itself?

Cabaal · 01-08-2014 10:36am #1

Just thinking about this,

Given RTE always invites in Iona onto panels, perhaps alot of this is to do with the fact that The word Institute evokes for some people a place where world-renowned scholars convene to debate the great issues.

Its not uncommon for RTE to have a panel of say 4 people and two of the people could be from Iona.

In short, the use of Institute in Iona's name almost makes it sound like they are some sort of authority or something....atleast to some people.

so with that in mind should Atheist Ireland re-brand to perhaps:
- The Atheist Institute
- Irish Atheists Institute
etc

Sure the change makes no difference to background, but perhaps such a PR change could help just like it did for changing "Bring back the good old catholic days" to The Iona Institute :pac:

Clearly Iona have a name that I believe they know is misleading, even Norris has called them out on it before.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15TIo35y1lI

Perhaps Atheist Ireland could try beat them at their own game

Mr. CooL ICE · 01-08-2014 10:40am

Nope. AI should never stoop as low as Iona in that regard.

As for rebranding; possibly something that emphasises secularisation over atheism would be more suited.

BigCOB · 01-08-2014 10:58am

What about the Institute of Staunch Irish Secularists? Or ISIS for short?

Oh wait, ISIS, maybe not

Brian Shanahan · 01-08-2014 11:17am

Cabaal wrote: »

Just thinking about this,

Given RTE always invites in Iona onto panels, perhaps alot of this is to do with the fact that The word Institute evokes for some people a place where world-renowned scholars convene to debate the great issues.

Its not uncommon for RTE to have a panel of say 4 people and two of the people could be from Iona.

In short, the use of Institute in Iona's name almost makes it sound like they are some sort of authority or something....atleast to some people.

so with that in mind should Atheist Ireland re-brand to perhaps:
- The Atheist Institute
- Irish Atheists Institute
etc

Sure the change makes no difference to background, but perhaps such a PR change could help just like it did for changing "Bring back the good old catholic days" to The Iona Institute :pac:

Clearly Iona have a name that I believe they know is misleading, even Norris has called them out on it before.

Perhaps Atheist Ireland could try beat them at their own game

If AI were going down that route, then they'd be better to rebrand themselves as "the Institute for Rational and Honest thinking on Religion". But, frankly, AI is fine. The organisation just needs to figure out what the best way to promote themselve to radio and tv bookers and pursue that a bit more strongly.

smacl · 01-08-2014 2:58pm

LordChessington wrote: »

As for rebranding; possibly something that emphasises secularisation over atheism would be more suited.

Agreed. At a glance, the term Atheist Ireland to me primarily refers to a bunch of Irish people who don't believe in God, whereas a term such as Secular Ireland refers to an agenda promoting increased secularism in Ireland. The word also has seems to carry a certain amount of connotations from the recent past, where atheist was commonly confused with pagan, communist, Godless heathen, anti-theist etc... and by and large a negative reference.

From what I've read about Atheist Ireland, it largely seems to be an organisation devoted to promotion of secularism and pluralism, which are both laudable but not exactly synonymous with atheism.

Akrasia · 01-08-2014 4:00pm

If you really want to manipulate the Media, you could emulate the Socialist Workers Party and create about a different front organisation for every populist issue.

Atheist Ireland could have a 'Secular education alliance' for media debates about religion in education and a 'Secular politics alliance' for discussions about oaths in public office and a 'Womens rights alliance' and a 'Gay rights alliance' so there's always a 'spokesperson' for whatever topic is at hand without the interviewer necessarily knowing that they're talking to an atheist.

Of course, there are very good reasons why so many people (including me) despise the SWP and this kind of tactical dishonesty is one of them

I much prefer the open honest approach. If you're honest and straight with people, your reputation will grow and people will respect your organisation and invite you to talk.

Dades · 01-08-2014 4:08pm

I've made my feelings known before on this. If Iona were called Catholic Ireland I doubt they'd get an invite to so many supposedly non-partisan debates.

I'd take some equivalent makey-uppy name like the 'Sagan Group' over the name AI in the battle to get secular ideas across without sounding like zealots.

Turtwig · 01-08-2014 4:14pm

BigCOB wrote: »

What about the Institute of Staunch Irish Secularists? Or ISIS for short?

Oh wait, ISIS, maybe not

It's spokesperson would undoubtedly be a one Sterling Mallory Archer.

Hotblack Desiato · 01-08-2014 8:49pm

Like 'gay', 'queer' etc. the negative connotations held by some towards the word 'atheist' are going to go unchallenged if atheists are afraid to describe themselves by that word.

Say it loud
I'm atheist and proud

bnt · 02-08-2014 8:09am

Thread should really be titled "I think Atheist Ireland should rebrand itself". Phrasing your opinion as a question doesn't mean anyone else is asking it, or lend it any weight. It annoys me when newspaper columnists do this too.

smacl · 02-08-2014 11:16am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Like 'gay', 'queer' etc. the negative connotations held by some towards the word 'atheist' are going to go unchallenged if atheists are afraid to describe themselves by that word.

Say it loud
I'm atheist and proud

Meh, I don't believe in a god or Gods so I'm an atheist. Not much to be proud of there, any more than I don't swell up inside because I'm not into football, or that I can't draw many positives from thinking most of what's on the telly is turgid crap. To me, being an atheist doesn't in any way suggest that I have anything whatsoever in common with other atheists, other than the absence of certain beliefs.

Secularism is something else entirely, in that it has positive goals that I can aspire to, and that working towards these goals might lead to a better society for future generation.

One of the few issues that I have with Atheist Ireland is the attempt to define atheism as something beyond its well defined and commonly accepted meaning. I'm dislike how the term has been commonly abused by the Christian majority of this country in the past, and I similarly dislike how Atheist Ireland abuse it now.

Benny_Cake · 02-08-2014 11:45am

I've often felt that there are many who aren't atheists who would share many of the secular goals of Atheist Ireland. In the US, one of the leading organisations promoting secularism (Americans United for the Separation of Church and State) is headed up by an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ. It's not necessary to be an atheist to see the benefit of a secular society.

Of course, AI sees "promoting atheism" as one of their purposes, so promoting secularism isn't their only reason for being.

smacl · 02-08-2014 12:54pm

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I've often felt that there are many who aren't atheists who would share many of the secular goals of Atheist Ireland.

Likewise, I think that conflating atheism with secularism creates a false dichotomy between those who are religious and those who support secular ideals. It can also serve to polarise people into groups in such a way as to encourage factionalism with all the nastiness that can entail.

That said, I believe Atheist Ireland by and large do a lot of great work that no one else is doing, and as such my previous comments really amount to little more than nit-picking in the larger scheme of things. I do think they'd get more traction with the media under a different name; one which is less of a direct provocation to all those nominal Catholics out there.

Nodin · 02-08-2014 5:17pm

Cabaal wrote: »

Perhaps Atheist Ireland could try beat them at their own game

For one thing, the Nugent fella needs to toughen up his look. Shave the head, few tattoos, maybe a scar or two on the face and practice his glare.

Hotblack Desiato · 02-08-2014 8:03pm

smacl wrote: »

Meh, I don't believe in a god or Gods so I'm an atheist. Not much to be proud of there

Nothing to be ashamed of either, though.

The fact that some people (usually Irish RC religious types who are ignorant of anything other than Irish cultural RC-ism) have negative connotations surrounding the word 'atheist' is all the more reason to use it and challenge these false perceptions (no morality, life is hopeless, etc :rolleyes: ) Atheism is normal. In fact it is the default state of humans.

Geomy · 04-08-2014 1:46am

Nodin wrote: »

For one thing, the Nugent fella needs to toughen up his look. Shave the head, few tattoos, maybe a scar or two on the face and practice his glare.

And maybe stop using the word arbitrary in every debate he's in.

Michael Nugent · 04-08-2014 1:53am

Geomy wrote: »

And maybe stop using the word arbitrary in every debate he's in.

That's a very arbitrary criticism.

nozzferrahhtoo · 04-08-2014 7:56am

Nodin wrote: »

For one thing, the Nugent fella needs to toughen up his look. Shave the head, few tattoos, maybe a scar or two on the face and practice his glare.

And he needs to hit the whisky. No one trusts a teetotaler who does not drink at all

Brian Shanahan · 04-08-2014 11:49am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And he needs to hit the whisky. No one trusts a teetotaler who does not drink at all

Belgian Trappist beers may be better. To outfox the enemy, one must think like the enemy; to think like the enemy, one must drink like the enemy.

wretcheddomain · 06-08-2014 1:50am

Geomy wrote: »

And maybe stop using the word arbitrary in every debate he's in.

And he has to stop wearing those red t-shirts in every debate! Am I the only one to have noticed this?

Nodin · 06-08-2014 6:46am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And he needs to hit the whisky. No one trusts a teetotaler who does not drink at all

He doesn't drink? What kind of heathen is he at all?

I Heart Internet · 06-08-2014 11:10am

Cabaal wrote: »

Clearly Iona have a name that I believe they know is misleading, even Norris has called them out on it before.

That's nonsense.

Iona is an island on the west coast of Scotland with a very extensive Christian monastic history. An Irish, Christian monastic history to be precise. it is thought that the Book of Kells, one of the most identifiable examples of Christian culture in Ireland was partially completed at Iona.

I understand that Iona now is still a centre of pilgrimage and has a Christian (of various strands) religious community living there.

I suspect "Iona" was chosen because, for people who understand Irish history, it has resonance. For people who don't, it is a nice, pleasing sounding, memorable name. It's better than the "Organisation for People who Want to Promote Christian Viewpoints in Irish Culture and Politics (OPWPCVICP for short).

Atheist Ireland should maybe look at what they do and what they support rather than criticising other organisations because they found a catchy name.

Cabaal · 06-08-2014 11:19am

I Heart Internet, seriously did you even bother to look at the video showing what Norris said before you typed out your silly rant?

:rolleyes:

nozzferrahhtoo · 06-08-2014 11:23am

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Atheist Ireland should maybe look at what they do and what they support rather than criticising other organisations because they found a catchy name.

I am curious.... have you an example of when Atheist Ireland have done any such thing?

I Heart Internet · 06-08-2014 11:24am

Cabaal wrote: »

I Heart Internet, seriously did you even bother to look at the video showing what Norris said before you typed out your silly rant?

:rolleyes:

I watched it in its entirety. From start to finish, even the section where Noriss disappeared and Ivana Bacik came on.

At no point did I see Senator Noriss "calling them (Iona) on their choice of name," as you suggest.

Did my comment help you to see why they might have chosen "Iona" in their name?

I Heart Internet · 06-08-2014 11:25am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am curious.... have you an example of when Atheist Ireland have done any such thing?

I beg your pardon, it was Cabaal who was criticising Iona's naming policy, not AI.

Delirium · 06-08-2014 11:32am

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I watched it in its entirety. From start to finish, even the section where Noriss disappeared and Ivana Bacik came on.

At no point did I see Senator Noriss "calling them (Iona) on their choice of name," as you suggest.

Did my comment help you to see why they might have chosen "Iona" in their name?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mitqlxalq60

I want to ask the leader another question. I want to ask him will he instigate some degree of research into the Iona Institute? Where they’re getting their money from. Why the don’t co-operate with SIPO? Who made them an ‘Institute’? In Britain they would be legally prohibited from using the word ‘Institute’ because they’re self-appointed.

Source

I Heart Internet · 06-08-2014 11:41am

I'd say they made themselves an Institute to be fair.

I'm not sure many are confused that this infers some kind of special status.

Is it any more audacious than Atheist Ireland's name - implicitly positioning themselves to be the voice of atheism in Ireland?

New names suggestions?

"The Truth Force"
"We're the Only Sane Ones Collective"
"We're NOT a religion"
"Free thinking....no that's wrong, you shouldn't think that"

robindch · 06-08-2014 11:48am

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I'm not sure many are confused that this infers some kind of special status.

I'm fairly sure that most people would be interested, and perhaps surprised, to hear that it consists of Mr Quinn and four or five of his friends. And shares offices with a range of other very peculiar special-interest, single-issue groups.

And I'm sure that everybody would be interested to hear where they get their money from.

Cabaal · 06-08-2014 12:14pm

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I watched it in its entirety. From start to finish, even the section where Noriss disappeared and Ivana Bacik came on.

At no point did I see Senator Noriss "calling them (Iona) on their choice of name," as you suggest.

You might want to watch it again as very clearly you were unable to understand what Norris said,
:rolleyes:

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Atheist Ireland should maybe look at what they do and what they support rather than criticising other organisations because they found a catchy name.

AI have never done what you are claiming here,

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I beg your pardon, it was Cabaal who was criticising Iona's naming policy, not AI.

Yet very clearly you said AI, not me.

Anyway, without a doubt the usage of the word Institute is to give them an air of authority where they are no such thing. They are simply a group of backward minded people who hang out together and would love the good old times of the 1950's to return.

"It was better in the good old days...."

I Heart Internet · 06-08-2014 12:19pm

Cabaal wrote: »

You might want to watch it again as very clearly you were unable to understand what Norris said,
:rolleyes:

AI have never done what you are claiming here,

Yet very clearly you said AI, not me.

Have you read any of the intervening post where I acknowledged this?

So what are your suggestions for AI's new name?

shruikan2553 · 06-08-2014 12:21pm

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I'd say they made themselves an Institute to be fair.

I'm not sure many are confused that this infers some kind of special status.

Is it any more audacious than Atheist Ireland's name - implicitly positioning themselves to be the voice of atheism in Ireland?

New names suggestions?

"The Truth Force"
"We're the Only Sane Ones Collective"
"We're NOT a religion"
"Free thinking....no that's wrong, you shouldn't think that"

Can call it " The Institute "

nozzferrahhtoo · 06-08-2014 1:19pm

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I'm not sure many are confused that this infers some kind of special status.

You would be surprised.

Wasn't there a Muslim Extremist posting on this forum.... or was it politics.ie..... called Eamonn something and he consistently and continuously refereed to himself as a "group" even though it was just him. And this linguistic leap was intended to make people take him more seriously.

As pointed out some places like the UK mediate who can be called an "institute" just like when you get an honorary doctorate from a uni in the US you do not get to call yourself "Doctor". We reserve some titles for those who deserve it. So no surprise to find what when a title like "institute" does confer some kind of credibility but is not regulated.... that people would leap to adopt it.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

So what are your suggestions for AI's new name?

"Atheist Institute" would be a funny re-branding I have to admit though. It smacks a little of Tom Lehrer's "Massachusetts state home for the bewildered". It would certainly tickle me in a kind of Monthy Python kind of way.

But as keeps being pointed out when the topic of the name of this organisation comes up, it was selected by vote by the original founding membership. Although my own involvement with them has waned since my move to Germany, I would be surprised to see any kind of re-branding or re-naming coming any time soon. But... I have been surprised before

Brian Shanahan · 06-08-2014 5:58pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Wasn't there a Muslim Extremist posting on this forum.... or was it politics.ie..... called Eamonn something and he consistently and continuously refereed to himself as a "group" even though it was just him.

Eranem? He's got one of those blog thingies now you know. Still spouting rubbish.

Nodin · 06-08-2014 6:19pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You would be surprised.

Wasn't there a Muslim Extremist posting on this forum.... or was it politics.ie..... called Eamonn something and he consistently and continuously refereed to himself as a "group" even though it was just him. And this linguistic leap was intended to make people take him more seriously.

There was, there was indeed. He used be a born again Christian, but that wasn't enough fun so he converted to Saudi style wahabi Islam. The group was him, one or two mates and his missus, god love her. Think he left here and went to Saudi in the end.

PopePalpatine · 06-08-2014 7:45pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Eranem? He's got one of those blog thingies now you know. Still spouting rubbish.

Bloody hell, that looks like some Dark Enlightenment bull****.

Piliger · 11-08-2014 2:05pm

Cabaal wrote: »

In short, the use of Institute in Iona's name almost makes it sound like they are some sort of authority or something....atleast to some people.

No it doesn't. It is not invited on to RTE because of it's institute, but because RTE is a biased catholic establishment state organisation. If they were called Catholicism Dominance, they would still be invited by RTE in 'dominant' numbers.

smacl · 11-08-2014 2:18pm

Piliger wrote: »

No it doesn't. It is not invited on to RTE because of it's institute, but because RTE is a biased catholic establishment state organisation. If they were called Catholicism Dominance, they would still be invited by RTE in 'dominant' numbers.

Yep, I suspect there's more than a bit of religious bias in the upper echelons of the RTE ok. There's also the double whammy that much of what Iona spouts is so cringeworthy they possibly deem it controversial and hence good television. Become more of a Vincent Brown fan myself in recent years as a result.

I Heart Internet · 12-08-2014 10:04am

smacl wrote: »

Yep, I suspect there's more than a bit of religious bias in the upper echelons of the RTE ok. There's also the double whammy that much of what Iona spouts is so cringeworthy they possibly deem it controversial and hence good television. Become more of a Vincent Brown fan myself in recent years as a result.

And Iona et al would claim that there is a bias against Catholicism in the upper echelons of RTE. And around and round we go.

Each side claiming RTE are biased against their point of view when actually RTE are just trying to muddle along and not get into trouble with regulators, politicians, etc.

You're losing the battle (whatever that battle is) when you're claiming that RTE is biased against you.

smacl · 12-08-2014 10:28am

I Heart Internet wrote: »

And Iona et al would claim that there is a bias against Catholicism in the upper echelons of RTE. And around and round we go.

Each side claiming RTE are biased against their point of view when actually RTE are just trying to muddle along and not get into trouble with regulators, politicians, etc.

You're losing the battle (whatever that battle is) when you're claiming that RTE is biased against you.

True to an extent, but RTE also tends to cater for a very conservative rather traditional audience, much more so say than TV3. The fact that they're propped up by the state, and enjoy generous salaries to boot, leaves them seemingly unwilling to rock the boat. Also worth keeping in mind that Iona is a pretty tiny organisation, dedicated to lobbying a certain Catholic viewpoint, with undisclosed possibly dubious funding sources. One wonders why they're on RTE at all, who's decision is this and on what grounds is it made? Given they've sued the RTE in recent times, and sucked up taxpayers money as a result, one wonders why they would be invited back?

I Heart Internet · 12-08-2014 10:52am

smacl wrote: »

True to an extent, but RTE also tends to cater for a very conservative rather traditional audience, much more so say than TV3. The fact that they're propped up by the state, and enjoy generous salaries to boot, leaves them seemingly unwilling to rock the boat. Also worth keeping in mind that Iona is a pretty tiny organisation, dedicated to lobbying a certain Catholic viewpoint, with undisclosed possibly dubious funding sources. One wonders why they're on RTE at all, who's decision is this and on what grounds is it made? Given they've sued the RTE in recent times, and sucked up taxpayers money as a result, one wonders why they would be invited back?

I expect it's down to producers -

"We need someone to take the anti-gay marriage/pro-life point of view in a debate! Who will we get?"

" Sure give Iona a buzz."

" Ah yeah, sorted."

smacl · 12-08-2014 11:04am

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I expect it's down to producers -

"We need someone to take the anti-gay marriage/pro-life point of view in a debate! Who will we get?"

" Sure give Iona a buzz."

"After the shít storm over Panti Bliss, are you joking me?"

" Ah yeah, sorry 'bout that, maybe give Diarmuid Martin a shout?"

FYP

I Heart Internet · 12-08-2014 11:19am

smacl wrote: »

FYP

Again though, it's RTE threading a fine line.

It would not fly to have RTE refusing to have Iona on as a result of their legal action. They would be seen as petty, etc.

RTE have a tough role to play - public service broadcaster and trying to give fair play to all. They do it reasonably well most of the time.

robindch · 12-08-2014 11:54am

I Heart Internet wrote: »

RTE have a tough role to play - public service broadcaster and trying to give fair play to all. They do it reasonably well most of the time.

Many modern journos believe that a good story is one where two sides are presented. That might work on some issues, but not all and it can end up providing single-issue cranks like Quinn et all with a free platform from which to broadcast their foolishness.

Encouragingly, the BBC has recently taken a firmer line on inviting cranks onto some of its shows, but most other media outlets have yet to follow suit:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10944629/BBC-staff-told-to-stop-inviting-cranks-on-to-science-programmes.html

Zubeneschamali · 12-08-2014 12:17pm

I think AI should rebrand as the Spanish Inquisition. Element of surprise.

robindch · 12-08-2014 12:25pm

^^^ Didn't expect that.

Cabaal · 12-08-2014 12:43pm

Nobody ever does.

Piliger · 12-08-2014 1:13pm

I Heart Internet wrote: »

And Iona et al would claim that there is a bias against Catholicism in the upper echelons of RTE. And around and round we go.

Each side claiming RTE are biased against their point of view when actually RTE are just trying to muddle along and not get into trouble with regulators, politicians, etc.

You're losing the battle (whatever that battle is) when you're claiming that RTE is biased against you.

Eh no. Not in any way shape or form. RTE is biased and needs to be called out on it. Your assertion makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. And the battle is clear. Religious prejudice.

It would not fly to have RTE refusing to have Iona on as a result of their legal action. They would be seen as petty, etc.

No it would not. It would have been seen as RTE taking a stand for freedom of speech against a small bigoted religious group, actually. Something that you appear not to value in any way.

RTE have a tough role to play - public service broadcaster and trying to give fair play to all. They do it reasonably well most of the time.

RTE have an incredibly easy role to play. And they play it abominably poorly.

Brian Shanahan · 12-08-2014 3:54pm

robindch wrote: »

Many modern journos believe that a good story is one where two sides are presented. That might work on some issues, but not all and it can end up providing single-issue cranks like Quinn et all with a free platform from which to broadcast their foolishness.

Actually its more of a case of the more honest media outlets somehow thinking that they should have a balanced output on every issue, leading to such ridiculous outcomes as climate change deniers being given equal air time to spout their lies as people talking in favour of doing something concrete about the problem (who are often as much laypeople as the deniers so that they are unable to counter the bull**** with proper facts, because the deniers are using quite sophisticated lies to bull**** the public) on media such as the BBC or in the Guardian despite the fact that the deniers have as much going for them as flat earthers (simply because climate change is new, and because the deniers are noisy seems to be controversial, whereas nearly everybody realises by now that flat earthers are cranks).

Of course the right wing media have no compulsion to be honest, so they rarely, if ever, balance their nut-jobs with people who know what they are talking about, therefore giving liars like climate change deniers a bigger platform in reality than those who are actually trying to save the species.

Piliger · 12-08-2014 4:23pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Actually its more of a case of the more honest media outlets somehow thinking that they should have a balanced output on every issue, leading to such ridiculous outcomes as climate change deniers being given equal air time to spout their lies as people talking in favour of doing something concrete about the problem (who are often as much laypeople as the deniers so that they are unable to counter the bull**** with proper facts, because the deniers are using quite sophisticated lies to bull**** the public) on media such as the BBC or in the Guardian despite the fact that the deniers have as much going for them as flat earthers (simply because climate change is new, and because the deniers are noisy seems to be controversial, whereas nearly everybody realises by now that flat earthers are cranks).

Of course the right wing media have no compulsion to be honest, so they rarely, if ever, balance their nut-jobs with people who know what they are talking about, therefore giving liars like climate change deniers a bigger platform in reality than those who are actually trying to save the species.

No rampant bias there then ....

I Heart Internet · 13-08-2014 10:05am

Piliger wrote: »

Eh no. Not in any way shape or form. RTE is biased and needs to be called out on it. Your assertion makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. And the battle is clear. Religious prejudice.

RTE are oppressing you?

Piliger wrote: »

No it would not. It would have been seen as RTE taking a stand for freedom of speech against a small bigoted religious group, actually. Something that you appear not to value in any way.

Why do a group's size have anything to do with their right to be heard?

Piliger wrote: »

RTE have an incredibly easy role to play. And they play it abominably poorly.

I disagree.

Should Atheist Ireland rebrand itself?

Comments