Should Michael Nugent and Atheist Ireland stop speaking for all atheists?

Huntergonzo wrote: »

I have heard a bit of Michael Nugent speaking and I think he's quite good to be honest but I don't think he claims to speak for all atheists, he does however speak on behalf of his organisation Atheist Ireland of which I'm not a member.

I have heard him in the past saying that he may be wrong in what he says and encourages people to question him and everything else they hear plus I generally hear him calling for a secular Ireland, not an Ireland that's biased towards atheists.

Ps, what's with the red shirt though? Has he no other ones?

I don't know why this hasn't been suggested before, but perhaps the powers that be so to speak on Boards could approach Michael with a view to doing an AMA, it might raise the public profile of atheism and secularism and could make for an interesting thread I'd say anyway.

Might finally find out what's the whole deal with the pineapple on the pizzas and the biscuits too, marigold or goldgrain, and just what is the deal with the red jumpers?

(I doubt it has much to do with them being particularly lucky )

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Atheist Ireland can be compared to it though.

Bollocks.

Neither atheism nor AI is comparable in any way to a religion. It's just the usual tiresome nonsense from people who try to derail and stifle any worthwhile discussion in this forum.

84% rabble rabble
atheism is just an ersatz religion, rabble rabble
atheists have no morals, rabble rabble -

- Ironically it is Michael Nugent's counter to that last bollock above which is being dragged up in this thread. Religious people claim to get morals from "god", but atheists have no belief in a god and are yet moral, so they must derive their morals from somewhere and it is THAT which he was talking about. It's actually an interesting question and it's one of the most commonly held and endlessly reiterated fallacies about atheists in general and atheists in Ireland in particular.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Atheism is easily comparable to religion, it simply depends on the criteria one uses to compare them. Atheism is the yin so to speak to theisms yang. AI is an organisation the very same way as organised religion is... organised, for example the RCC is often referred to as a club, a club has a membership, AI has a membership. That's not tiresome nonsense, that's simply demonstrating that two different ideologies are indeed comparable.

No, as Hotblack Desiato has said, neither atheism nor AI are comparable to religion.

Firstly, with regard to AI, it is simply an organisation with members who share a common interest. If you're going to define religion this way or on the basis of your quote above because it's "organised" then this would mean that sports clubs, the women's institute and academic institutes are all religions on this basis. Clearly defining religion on the basis of organisation is insufficient. You are arguing a fallacy of composition here. Just because AI and, for example, the Catholic Church share one characteristic, organisation, does not mean that they are otherwise comparable in any way.

Secondly, atheism is also not comparable to religion. To use the old cliche, if atheism is a religion then off is a tv channel. Atheism has no creeds, no beliefs, no holy texts, no positive positions of any kind. It is not a belief system, a worldview, an ideology or a religion. It is simply the rejection of theistic claims. It is the answer to one question: Do you believe in God?

Do womens rights organisations throw out the caveat at the start of every interview that they do no speak for all women? Do trade unions have to say they do not speak for every worker? Do homeless charities seeking rights and facilities for the homeless mention they are not speaking for all homeless people? Do childrens associations point out they might not be speaking for all children?

Why single out AI and no one else and demand they mention this caveat in every interview, when no one else has to? I have more respect for the public than that and expect when they see a representative for any organisation appear in the media that they know, without being spoon fed it like docile retards, that the person is representing their organisation and not every single person the label in the name of the organisation might actually apply to.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

but then that wouldn't bode well for his organisation which seeks to impose the morality of atheism upon people, and in particular Irish people.

By all means regale us with what the morality of atheism actually entails and how it is being imposed by his organisation. In fact in every interview I have recently heard from him he has set himself as being JUST as opposed to the establishment of atheism in schools, the Angelus or anything else as he is to anything religious being there.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Why single out AI and no one else and demand they mention this caveat in every interview, when no one else has to? I have more respect for the public than that and expect when they see a representative for any organisation appear in the media that they know, without being spoon fed it like docile retards, that the person is representing their organisation and not every single person the label in the name of the organisation might actually apply to.

For someone with the ability to express themselves in eloquent terms, I would have expected better. I absolutely despise the use of that archaic term and it's connotations.

By all means regale us with what the morality of atheism actually entails and how it is being imposed by his organisation. In fact in every interview I have recently heard from him he has set himself as being JUST as opposed to the establishment of atheism in schools, the Angelus or anything else as he is to anything religious being there.

No regaling necessary, it's simply an absence of belief in a deity or deities, and one of AI's main aims is to eradicate superstitious beliefs in Irish society. I happen to possess the ability to separate Michael's personal philosophy from Atheist Ireland as an organisation, and so while Michael is opposed to established atheism in institutions, the net effect of Atheist Ireland's aims is that by ridding society of supernaturalism and superstition, Ireland becomes an atheist society by default.

I can't see that happening in my lifetime, but I can still admire Michael for his efforts. I'm not really keen on the aims of Atheist Ireland though. I like their ideas about secularism, just not so much the eradication of superstition and supernaturalism in Irish society. In any society there is a place for all ideologies, and none need be eradicated. I see that as an unnecessary imposition on society.

antitheist1 wrote: »

Maybe that point deserves another thread but it's nothing to do with my point.

Atheist ireland should only claim to speak for its own members not all atheists.

I wasn't responding to your OP, I was responding to One Eyed Jack's point.

However, with regard to your OP, I don't see any evidence that Michael claims to speak for all atheists. Therefore I don't see the need for any explicit caveat. As Nozz points out, other organisations don't preface their comments on an issue with any such caveat. The main reason for this is that most people aren't so quick to make such a hasty generalisation. I mean most Catholics don't assume that David Quinn or Ronan Mullen or Bill Donohue (for the Americans reading) speak for all Catholics.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I did say though that the validity of the comparison is dependent upon what criteria one uses to compare them. I didn't define religion or atheism as a club though. I define them as ideologies. I defined AI and the RCC as clubs, and whatever ideology they espouse is merely an identifier of their club, or a commonality of their particular club.

So in that respect, the women's institute, academic institutes and so on, are all clubs. I don't think that's a composition fallacy, religion is nothing more than an ideology, and the various denominations are the clubs. Atheism is an ideology, and AI are the club, and there are many more clubs with atheist ideology as their commonality.

No, you compared them on the basis of both being organised, on which basis clubs would also be comparable to religions.

Atheism is not an ideology and thus is not comparable to religion. And by ideology I mean in the established definition of the word:

"The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, a group, a class, or a culture. A system of beliefs or theories, usually political, held by an individual or a group. "

Atheism doesn't have any beliefs nor does it have any theories. If your answer to the question "Do you believe in a God(s)?" is no, then you're an atheist. That's it. There are no other associated beliefs, or views required.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Atheism is an indifference to theism as I always understood it, as opposed to an outright rejection of theistic claims. The rejection of theistic claims is an anti-theist position if I'm reading that correctly?

Well, no.

Atheism at its most basic level is a lack of belief in a god or gods. You can add additional qualifiers to say something more, like strong atheism, for example, which is a positive belief that there is no God. Rejecting theistic claims is not an anti-theism position. Any claim which does not meet its burden of proof ought to be rejected, that is just logic, its not anti-anything. Anti-theism is the specific positive belief that religion is dangerous and harmful and hurts individuals aswell as harming progress of society as a whole. Given the history of this country and its relationship with the Catholic Church and the impact of said church's actions on society, it's easy to see why the two might become confused.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I never liked that analogy, especially now we're in the digital age of enlightenment. So I would compare them thusly - atheism is the black and white television. Religion is the colour television. Atheism is nothing to get too excited about, whereas religion on the other hand, well there's lots to discover, so that's what makes it a pretty colourful experience, as opposed to the black and white of atheism. There's still plenty going on, but it's rather dull IMO in comparison to religion. The modern Atheist movement tries to pit science against religion in order to gain a following as though the two are diametrically opposed to each other, and in reality, they aren't. The two are quite compatible and one has been around as long as the other.

I think you're asking the wrong question there if you're expecting atheism is the correct answer. Indifference to claims of supernatural and existential powers is what I would see as a more accurate descriptor of atheism. I don't think personally that atheism has ever been the answer to any questions, and in truth IMO it's an ideology that presents more questions than answers for a curious mind. Religion was, and still is for many, an attempt to answer those questions. The modern upsurge in scientific inquiry is no bad thing either though. It's like the 3D version of religion's CRT... perhaps stretching the metaphor there

I would say that metaphor has been tortured rather than stretched. The B&W vs. colour analogy doesn't really hold up. For the comparison to be valid, both atheism and theism would both have to proffer ideas about life, the afterlife, God etc. and then a judgement could be made about the relative value, or colour of the views. However, atheism doens't proffer any such views and hence the comparison collapses.
FWIW, religion isn't all that colourful because it has nothing of real value to offer. All it does is offer ideas, explanations not grounded in reason or evidence. As Richard Feynman said: "I think it's much more interesting to not know than to have answers which might be wrong."


I didn't suggest atheism as being the correct answer to anything. I just pointed out that if you answer no to the question of belief in God then you're an atheist, that's it.
Indifference to religion/supernatural phenomena is ignosticism not atheism. A lot of atheists can be quite interested in religion and its impact on society.

Yes, religion is an attempt for some to answer questions but what good are answers if there's no evidence to show whether the answer is right or not? And whose answer should we listen to? Throughout human history people have believed in approximately 2700 deities from various belief systems. They can't all be right. They can, of course, all be wrong. Withholding belief in exchange for evidence is, IMHO, the only sensible position.

With regard to your ideas about atheism, perhaps this might help explain things better:

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not sure what relevance that has to anything at all but thanks all the same. Just as soon as your linguistic pedantry becomes important to me in any way whatsoever, I will endeavor to remove the word from my lexicon.

And in that same vein, just as soon as your opinion becomes worthy of entertaining in any way whatsoever, I will endeavour to take it seriously. In the meantime however, I shan't feel any need whatsoever to entertain what I perceive as incivility couched in meandering waffle.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

In other words you can not actually answer the question I put to you so, as you have done on numerous threads in the past, you have found a way to throw the toys out of the pram and storm out without responding to anything. Fair enough. But if you ever manage to define the term you yourself introduced, this "morality of atheism" then by all means return and have another shot at it. But the "incivility couched in meandering waffle" came from you not me when you ignroed the points I was making in favor of pedantic and irrelevant commentary on the words I chose to use.

In the meantime I think the majority of us realize there is no "morality of atheism" any more than there are rules for how to score points in the decision not to play any sport at all. And as such the contention that Nugent and AI are imposing the morality of atheism on Irish Society is about as much hot air and bluster as the haughty departure under which you are now beating your hasty retreat.

There's no hasty retreat being beaten here, rather simply withdrawing from the discussion when I grow tired of your incessant waffle and precocious point scoring efforts that detract from any meaningful discussion. oldrnwiser as always opened up some great points for discussion, but as Hotblack lamented the shutting down of the discussion earlier, I civilly pointed out that I expected higher standards from yourself and it was you who threw your toys out of the pram in your usual indignant fashion. Fair enough. I'd have loved to continue the discussion with those posters who were interested in the discussion and not simply their own grandstanding ability, but I can't see that happening now and so I simply choose to withdraw from the discussion because I can't be arsed. As interested as I am in this discussion, I'm not so interested that I can be bothered willy waving about the place. It's unfortunate, but c'est la vie and que sera sera.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

simply withdrawing from the discussion when I grow tired of your incessant waffle and precocious point scoring efforts that detract from any meaningful discussion.

Except once again it was you doing this not me, with your petty linguistic pedantry that had nothing at all to do with the points I was making. And in fact my choice of the word was deliberate for reasons that appear to have gone over your head.

The points scoring is on your side alone, and because you do this you are parsing my responses through that narrative and accusing other of it rather than yourself. But the fact remains you threw out this contention that Nugent and AI were imposing "the morality of atheism" on Irish society and realizing that this is a nonsense term I merely asked you to expand upon it.

And you can't.

So you are now hastily retreating under this false narrative of you merely being disgusted at my tone or some such cop out excuse, rather than simply admit you invented an empty meaningless phrase, to feed an empty and meaningless contention, that you can not now substantiate in any way.

You claim to want "meaningful discussion", then put your money where your mouth is and at least define your terms when you use them rather than legging it. The toy throwing and indignation is yours alone. How can one have "meaningful discussion" with you if you throw out empty contentions and when asked to expand on a term you yourself introduced, you merely cop out of it? The termination of meaningful discussion happens there, not with me.

The point I made still stands, and you responded to nothing about it except a single word you personally do not like. The point being that our society is chock full of associations and institutions. And when they appear in the media they are not demanded to declare they are not talking for EVERY person their groups name might apply to. Yet the OP wishes this to be so for AI, that they go around injecting into every media appearance that they do not presume to speak for all atheists.

And despite your empty contention AI and Nugent are not imposing anything about Atheism on Irish Society. Rather they call for and celebrate a pluralist society but recognize where the borders of that should lie, such as for example, at the door of our halls of power and education and science. It is the introduction of another voice in a democratic discourse and nothing is being imposed on anyone, let alone "atheist morality" which itself is a non-entity of any kind existing, it seems, solely in your head.