Should Atheist Ireland rebrand itself?

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I think some people are underestimating most people’s common sense.

Should the following also rebrand themselves?

• The Catholic Church
• The Church of Ireland
• The Humanist Association of Ireland
• The Irish Times
• The Irish Independent
• The Irish Architectural Archive
• The Labour Party
• The Workers Party
• The Green Party
• Manchester United
• Manchester City
• United of Manchester
• Chariots of Fire
• Lord of the Flies
• 50 Shades of Grey
• Boards.ie

The more I think of it, we should be more concerned about almost any group or organisation whose name begins with the word 'The'

Pherekydes wrote: »

This one should! It's not in Manchester!

:pac:

And it is not united

Dades wrote: »

If this is the level we're going to play at, I'm not sure I'm in any more.

You wait weeks, months even, to make a profound statement on the meaning of life, atheism, biscuits or the city of Stretford, and someone counters with a slapdown!

Atheism: deadly serious business!

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

We still haven't addressed the attire issue of Atheist Ireland!

smacl wrote: »

Your list comprises of the following;

I see that you are picking different criteria to judge each name. Okay, let's go with that.

smacl wrote: »

- 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).

So it is a question of size, age and investment, then? Not anything inherently wrong with the name Atheist Ireland?

smacl wrote: »

- 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.

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?

smacl wrote: »

- 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.

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?

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?

smacl wrote: »

- Book titles, such as lord of the Flies, where the title is typically meant to pique interest rather than represent content.

You can't judge a book by its cover

smacl wrote: »

- 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.

Again, they both use the word 'The', which implies that they are the only, or the definitive, group of that type.

smacl wrote: »

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.

Why would you make that assumption?

There are several dictionary definitions of humanism, and none are definitive.

Here's the OED definition:

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?

smacl wrote: »

As a name, Atheist Ireland isn't really comparable to any of the above.

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.

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.

robindch wrote: »

^^^ 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.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

You can't judge a book by its cover

You shouldn't but people do. It would very naive to ignore this fact.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

That's a very arbitrary criticism.

And your response came across as very ostentatious ;-)

.

Dades wrote: »

But not all atheists are happy for an organisation to suggest there are "nuances" at all.

That may well be so, but the nuances exist nevertheless. That is a fact, not an opinion. We can have different opinions about the fact that the nuances exist, but that the nuances do exist is a fact.

Suggesting that an atheist advocacy group should not discuss these nuances seems strange. If we didn't discuss them, we would be accused of being dogmatic and fundamentalist.

Dades wrote: »

Although I already know this doesn't concern you as you've said before that you have no problem with the term atheism becoming synonymous with ideas that have nothing to do with traditional atheism.

You keep saying that, but "traditional" is subject to nuance and constant adaptation as well.

• "Traditional atheism" used to be the Romans calling Pagans atheists because they rejected the Roman Gods.
• "Traditional atheism" used to mean rejection of gods, not disbelief in gods.
• "Traditional atheism" used to mean wicked or evil.
• "Traditional atheism" today means disbelief in god to most people, and lack of belief in gods to some people.

Also, I have never suggested that atheism should be synonymous with ideas that have "nothing to do with" atheism, or even, I suspect, "nothing to do with" whatever it is you consider to be traditional atheism.

I have said that some ideas necessarily follow from atheism, regarding the nature of reality and morality, and that those ideas are significant foundational world views, particularly in a world where most people believe the opposite.

smacl wrote: »

As dicussed here from post #271, it is a clear fallacy to suggest atheists have a common world view of any kind simply because they are atheists.

And as you will see form that discussion, I disagree with you, and I outlined why.

smacl wrote: »

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.

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.

smacl wrote: »

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.

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.

smacl wrote: »

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.

smacl wrote: »

If you want to tack on some ancillary meaning you need to qualify the word, as you have done previously using Ethical Atheism.

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.

smacl wrote: »

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.

Even the definition you are using there provides enough nuance to fill another twenty pages of discussion.

.

smacl wrote: »

This is where I have a difficulty. Maybe list *some* things all atheist's do believe in, as opposed to something they do not believe in (e.g. God). My premise is that you have to qualify the word atheist in some way in order to do this.

No you don't. It is crystal clear as it is.

From a branding perspective, "Secular Ireland" would be a much more accurate and, more importantly, more compelling title for the organisation.

A "Secular Ireland" organisation could more positively promote collaboration between religious and non-religious to achieve separation between church and state.

As it is, and as evidenced by this discussion, the "Atheist Ireland" title provokes a divisive reaction from the faithful and atheists alike (as well as the perpetually outraged), which is unhelpful if you're striving for a goal that a majority of the population probably support.

Sacksian wrote: »

From a branding perspective, "Secular Ireland" would be a much more accurate and, more importantly, more compelling title for the organisation.

A "Secular Ireland" organisation could more positively promote collaboration between religious and non-religious to achieve separation between church and state.

As it is, and as evidenced by this discussion, the "Atheist Ireland" title provokes a divisive reaction from the faithful and atheists alike (as well as the perpetually outraged), which is unhelpful if you're striving for a goal that a majority of the population probably support.

What a silly idea. I have loads of secular catholic friends. They are devoted catholics but believe strongly in the separation of church and state. Your issue with Atheism is a personal problem, it seems, and not a justifiable one.