Atheists/Agnostics?

thusspakeblixa

Would anyone be interested in joining and/or helping me set up a society for Atheists, Agnostics, Secularists and Skeptics.
There's one in UCC- SASS (Secularist, Atheist and Skeptic Society) and over on atheist.ie they're helping people to set societies up.
There is a Christian Union and Islamic Soc, so why not?
It could be called DCU SASS (Pending UCC's approval)
Or SANE (stolen from Berkeley) - Students for A Nonreligious Ethos

Yusuf Mirza

So brother you want to set up a society for Atheists and agnostics? Will they get along? Atheists or true atheists are aggressive and evangelical. Their atheistic zeal is comparable to that of the most fundamental religiocrat. While agnostics are those who perhaps believe in a greater truth but have yet to be satisfactorily convinced. Secularists are generally semi committed Christians who oppose "Islamisation" of western society.

Why not take up a hobby? Like perhaps collecting international call cards :-)

thusspakeblixa

Yusuf Mirza wrote: »

So brother you want to set up a society for Atheists and agnostics? Will they get along? Atheists or true atheists are aggressive and evangelical. Their atheistic zeal is comparable to that of the most fundamental religiocrat. While agnostics are those who perhaps believe in a greater truth but have yet to be satisfactorily convinced. Secularists are generally semi committed Christians who oppose "Islamisation" of western society.

Why not take up a hobby? Like perhaps collecting international call cards :-)

I'm an atheist, I'd consider myself a "true atheist" and I don't try to "convert" anyone
In general it would be a society for people who want to be free from religious influence- not just atheists and agnostics.
I get along with loads of agnostics, I'd like any proposed society to be as inclusive as possible really.
:cool:
And why are there secularists in the Islamic world then?

Alanthroneus

thusspakeblixa wrote: »

Would anyone be interested in joining and/or helping me set up a society for Atheists, Agnostics, Secularists and Skeptics.
There's one in UCC- SASS (Secularist, Atheist and Skeptic Society) and over on atheist.ie they're helping people to set societies up.
There is a Christian Union and Islamic Soc, so why not?
It could be called DCU SASS (Pending UCC's approval)
Or SANE (stolen from Berkeley) - Students for A Nonreligious Ethos

What would your aims and objectives be?

DemocAnarchis

Yusuf Mirza wrote: »

So brother you want to set up a society for Atheists and agnostics? Will they get along? Atheists or true atheists are aggressive and evangelical. Their atheistic zeal is comparable to that of the most fundamental religiocrat. While agnostics are those who perhaps believe in a greater truth but have yet to be satisfactorily convinced. Secularists are generally semi committed Christians who oppose "Islamisation" of western society.

Why not take up a hobby? Like perhaps collecting international call cards :-)

Sounds like you have a bit of a persecution complex. I consider myself an athiest and definately do not consider myself "evangelical". The constant tarring of atheiests and agnostics as militants is deeply untrue for the vast majority that I have encountered and quite annoying. Because I find no logical evidence to support the existance of a god, I am militant? A society is a place for like minded people to discuss their ideas, not to plot the persecution of islam or any other religion :rolleyes:

In fact, the only case of a society acting in an envangelical and agressive manner that I can recall in my time in DCU was UltraSound, a christian anti-abortion society.

I for one would be quite interested in joining this society if it takes off, but as I am in final year I do not have the time to dedicate to helping it start up unfortunately.

cocoa

I'd support this society and might join. But I'm curious, what exactly would you do? Just regular meetings for like minded people to chat or? I just can't envisage any obvious activities which tie in with the idea of an atheist society that would be all that fun / interesting.

robby^5

cocoa wrote: »

I'd support this society and might join. But I'm curious, what exactly would you do? Just regular meetings for like minded people to chat or? I just can't envisage any obvious activities which tie in with the idea of an atheist society that would be all that fun / interesting.

UCC - SASS suggested events/activities wrote:

- host DVD evenings showing films or programmes of interest
- invite guest speakers to talk on specific subjects; just to give an example, the first speaker we have lined up (pending getting soc status) is from Educate Together, which is a multidenominational primary school system in Ireland
- organise trips to national conferences of Atheist Association of Ireland / Humanist Association of Ireland / Irish Skeptics , etc.
- generally represent the concerns and views of non-believers on campus in an organised and coherent (and of course peaceful) fashion
- hold debates from time to time when a major relevant issue comes up (for e.g. stem cell research in UCC, etc.)

Events of this nature would most definitely interest me anyway.

thusspakeblixa

cocoa wrote: »

I'd support this society and might join. But I'm curious, what exactly would you do? Just regular meetings for like minded people to chat or? I just can't envisage any obvious activities which tie in with the idea of an atheist society that would be all that fun / interesting.

Yeah we'd have regular meetings, but also book readings and guest speakers perhaps. I mean I'm completely open to any ideas for activities. Spreading the word of secularism through "Atheist bus" style advertising, anyone?

DemocAnarchis wrote: »

I for one would be quite interested in joining this society if it takes off, but as I am in final year I do not have the time to dedicate to helping it start up unfortunately.

No bother compadre, your support is most welcome

Alanthroneus wrote: »

What would your aims and objectives be?

To provide a forum for atheists, agnostics, secularists, and free thinkers. To give them a voice on campus, just as the Christians and Muslims already have.
Also- we'd be the first atheist society at 3rd level in Dublin. I'd say we'll get more than 20 members on campus. Spread the word anyway.
Any volunteers for committee members?

cognos

In general it would be a society for people who want to be free from religious influence- not just atheists and agnostics.

In fairness the juggling soc would provide an enviornment just as free from religious influence. I don't see the point of the society unless its either a movement to push atheist beliefs or a club for people who don't want to associate with non-athiests. If it is either of those I wouldn't wan't anything to do with it - despite being an athiest.

cocoa

cognos wrote: »

In fairness the juggling soc would provide an enviornment just as free from religious influence. I don't see the point of the society unless its either a movement to push atheist beliefs or a club for people who don't want to associate with non-athiests. If it is either of those I wouldn't wan't anything to do with it - despite being an athiest.

*pumps fist* free advertisement for jugglesoc

cognos has a point. I would join, but in general I would be too busy to attend events or anything, unless they were something that was fun or that I was interested in. The key problem here is, atheism doesn't define something I'm interested in, it just defines a few things I amn't interested in (christianity, islam, etc.). So the only reason I can really see to have one, is to insure that the atheists don't go unrepresented, almost simply in order to keep things square with the theists, which isn't really something I'm that interested in either...

thusspakeblixa

cognos wrote: »

In fairness the juggling soc would provide an enviornment just as free from religious influence. I don't see the point of the society unless its either a movement to push atheist beliefs or a club for people who don't want to associate with non-athiests. If it is either of those I wouldn't wan't anything to do with it - despite being an athiest.

Well IMO that secularist beliefs and free thinking should be encouraged anyway. The more parents who have children and bring them up free from religion the better.
And the jugglesoc point is valid but we would aim to provide an entirely different form of environment. One where discussion can be held and where you can meet like-minded people. Sometimes it can seem that you're completely alone when you're an Irish atheist.

napapa

thusspakeblixa wrote: »

Sometimes it can seem that you're completely alone when you're an Irish atheist.

You obviously don't frequent the science block!!!

thusspakeblixa

napapa wrote: »

You obviously don't frequent the science block!!!

Nah... Henry Grattan head here!
I'll check over there if there are potential members about though

AlkalineAcid

Above the door on the Interfaith Centre there is an 8 spoked wheel showing symbols of different religions and between two spokes is a missing symbol! That must be for atheists! :rolleyes:

Get on to chaplains about it. Ask them what they think.

monument

No, I for one won't be up for this.

Atheists -- or at least the Richard Dawkins and other determined types, who seem to account for most atheists these days -- should be seen as agnostics' worst enemies.

Not least because a large segment of the population can't tell the difference between being an atheists and being an agnostics. I've even encountered a few people who are agnostics but mistakenly call them selves atheists.

The Dawkins types, like Dawkins himself, act and talk like fanatics and fundamentalists. Their views -- strangely -- are as extrema as the religious extremists they oppose. Although Richard Dawkins himself seems to have a larger problem with the religious moderates.

All too many of them follow Dawkins as if he was a profit or a preacher, or follow his books they are bibles. It seems most atheists these days have just as strong believes and are as locked into those believes (ie closed minded) as religious extremists. Meanwhile, agnostics have more in common with religious moderates.

Here's something Dawkins doesn't quote too often: "The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic"

That's Charles Darwin. Dawkins uses Darwin's work as one of his primary sources, but Darwin was an agnostic, not an atheist. He was too open-minded to be an atheist.

BTW on secularism, you can be religious and church-going and still be in favour of secularism. If anybody wants to promote secularism, linking your self with extremists like atheists likely isn't the best way to go about it.

cocoa

it's quite possible to be an agnostic atheist... Atheism just means a lack of theism, so if you believe it's unknowable and you also don't subscribe to theism, then you are an agnostic atheist...

Also, perhaps the reason why you think the majority of atheists are the militant kind, is that mostly only the militant kind go around pointing out that they are atheists? I personally haven't ever had the misfortune to meet one...

thusspakeblixa

monument wrote: »

No, I for one won't be up for this.

Atheists -- or at least the Richard Dawkins and other determined types, who seem to account for most atheists these days -- should be seen as agnostics' worst enemies.

Not least because a large segment of the population can't tell the difference between being an atheists and being an agnostics. I've even encountered a few people who are agnostics but mistakenly call them selves atheists.

The Dawkins types, like Dawkins himself, act and talk like fanatics and fundamentalists. Their views -- strangely -- are as extrema as the religious extremists they oppose. Although Richard Dawkins himself seems to have a larger problem with the religious moderates.

All too many of them follow Dawkins as if he was a profit or a preacher, or follow his books they are bibles. It seems most atheists these days have just as strong believes and are as locked into those believes (ie closed minded) as religious extremists. Meanwhile, agnostics have more in common with religious moderates.

Here's something Dawkins doesn't quote too often: "The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic"

That's Charles Darwin. Dawkins uses Darwin's work as one of his primary sources, but Darwin was an agnostic, not an atheist. He was too open-minded to be an atheist.

BTW on secularism, you can be religious and church-going and still be in favour of secularism. If anybody wants to promote secularism, linking your self with extremists like atheists likely isn't the best way to go about it.

Again, as with the post up above, not all atheists are "evangelical". I myself am an atheist- not an agnostic. I don't try to convert people unless they try to convert me.
This post here is the reason DCU needs a society for atheists and freethinkers in general. Too long have atheists been misrepresented and portrayed as extremists.
Atheists and agnostics should be able to work together, we'ree small enough in groups as it is.
And I agree that secularists can be theists. Once again- I am not an extremist, nor are most of the atheists I know. Aligning yourself with people who share in your secularist beliefs is the way to go about it, however "extremist" you may be.
I'm not even bothering to reply to the rest of your post as sadly it falls victim to the same ridiculous generalisations as I get every day of the week.

monument

cocoa wrote: »

it's quite possible to be an agnostic atheist... Atheism just means a lack of theism, so if you believe it's unknowable and you also don't subscribe to theism, then you are an agnostic atheist...

No, it's not. At least not according to any dictionary or other definition I've seen. For example, from the Cambridge Dictionary:

atheist
someone who believes that God or gods do not exist

agnostic
someone who does not know, or believes that it is impossible to know, whether a god exists

And the Compact Oxford Dictionary:

atheism
the belief that God does not exist

agnostic
noun a person who believes that nothing can be known concerning the existence of God.

And the full Oxford English Dictionary:

atheist
Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism)

agnostic
One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing.

An atheist is sure that there is no god/s. It's a clear position. It's not in any way open. While an agnostic is not sure, or does not think you can be sure, or leaves it open. It's not a clear position.

So, as far as I can see, the two terms are not compatible.

The atheist position is not open. It is locked into the idea that there is no god. Unless you can show something that firmly contradicts two of the most respected dictionaries above, then you (a) misunderstanding the meaning of the term, or (b) are you are distorting the English language.

cocoa wrote: »

Also, perhaps the reason why you think the majority of atheists are the militant kind, is that mostly only the militant kind go around pointing out that they are atheists? I personally haven't ever had the misfortune to meet one...

Did I mention militant?

thusspakeblixa wrote: »

This post here is the reason DCU needs a society for atheists and freethinkers in general.

Too long have atheists been misrepresented and portrayed as extremists.
Atheists and agnostics should be able to work together, we'ree small enough in groups as it is.

I'm confused how a firmly closed position such as atheism has anything to do with freethinking. Really, what has a closed position have to do with freethinking?

And, no, I'm not saying, nor implying, atheists are closed minded. But if they are open-minded, their atheist side (ie the closed position that there is no god) is most likely blinkered to their open-minded side.

Compared to agnostics, and even compared to most religious moderates, atheists are talking a clear unchangeable position. Compared to agnostics, and even compared to many religious moderates, atheists are extremists.

thusspakeblixa wrote: »

I'm not even bothering to reply to the rest of your post as sadly it falls victim to the same ridiculous generalisations as I get every day of the week.

Niall, sorry, but just what part of the post was a generalisation? Are you a Richard Dawkins fan?

cocoa

monument wrote: »

No, it's not. At least not according to any dictionary or other definition I've seen. For example, from the Cambridge Dictionary:

atheist
someone who believes that God or gods do not exist

agnostic
someone who does not know, or believes that it is impossible to know, whether a god exists

And the Compact Oxford Dictionary:

atheism
the belief that God does not exist

agnostic
noun a person who believes that nothing can be known concerning the existence of God.

And the full Oxford English Dictionary:

atheist
Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism)

agnostic
One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing.

An atheist is sure that there is no god/s. It's a clear position. It's not in any way open. While an agnostic is not sure, or does not think you can be sure, or leaves it open. It's not a clear position.

So, as far as I can see, the two terms are not compatible.

The atheist position is not open. It is locked into the idea that there is no god. Unless you can show something that firmly contradicts two of the most respected dictionaries above, then you (a) misunderstanding the meaning of the term, or (b) are you are distorting the English language.

Well all I can say is I've never seen such closed definitions before. I've always worked off of the definition derived from the words basis in language A, meaning not or lack of, and Theism, meaning belief in a creator deity of any sort. You'll find many people over on the Atheism and Agnosticism board hold the same view. I'm not saying the dictionaries are wrong, I'm just saying a sizeable proportion of people both here on boards and in the world in general, work off a different one. Many still make the distinction between strong and weak atheists in order to avoid confusion, weak atheist referring to those who merely lack theism, and strong atheist referring to those who oppose it completely.

The word disbelief is also ambiguous, can mean lack of belief or belief in the opposite.

In terms of something that firmly contradicts the above definitions, wiktionary is your friend. I personally am a strong believer in language being defined by the users, not a minority that can release a book.

monument wrote: »

Did I mention militant?

In hindsight, nope. but you did use the words fundamentalist and extremism, which I often see along with militant when people are accusing atheism of being just another kind of dangerous cult thingy. Apologies for misquoting you.

Green Hand Guy

monument, I think the only person here displaying closed-mindedness is you.

I'm an atheist myself. I don't go around persecuting religious people or trying to convert them. I just don't see a logical way that there can be a god because, quite honestly, I can see no proof or need for one.

How would you feel if everybody started saying there was an invisible giraffe with a laser for a face wandering around O'Connell Street? You probably wouldn't believe them, and you'd have every right not to. So please, respect my right to believe that there is no God and stop trying to pigeon-hole me.

monument

cocoa wrote: »

... I'm not saying the dictionaries are wrong, I'm just saying a sizeable proportion of people both here on boards and in the world in general, work off a different one.

As I said in my first post:

Not least because a large segment of the population can't tell the difference between being an atheists and being an agnostics. I've even encountered a few people who are agnostics but mistakenly call them selves atheists

In terms of something that firmly contradicts the above definitions, wiktionary is your friend. I personally am a strong believer in language being defined by the users, not a minority that can release a book.

Indeed a language is something which should be seen as alive rather than set in stone, but changing words meanings when there are already words to describe such things is going into muddy waters.

And the descriptions from wiktionary (as I viewed it without editing it): "A person who does not believe that deities exist; one who lacks belief in gods" and "A person who believes that no deities exist; one who denies the existence of all gods" do not really contradict what I quoted above.

Green Hand Guy wrote: »

monument, I think the only person here displaying closed-mindedness is you.

I'm an atheist myself. I don't go around persecuting religious people or trying to convert them. I just don't see a logical way that there can be a god because, quite honestly, I can see no proof or need for one.

How would you feel if everybody started saying there was an invisible giraffe with a laser for a face wandering around O'Connell Street? You probably wouldn't believe them, and you'd have every right not to. So please, respect my right to believe that there is no God and stop trying to pigeon-hole me.

Why do atheists oddly sound like religious people who are being persecuted? And what on earth does your "need" for a god, or lack of a need for one, have to do with there being one or not?

and stop trying to pigeon-hole me.

You? When was I trying to pigeon-hole you?

If you're easily offended you should try to avoid internet discussion boards, maybe even avoid the internet internet altogether.

cocoa

monument wrote: »

As I said in my first post:And the descriptions from wiktionary (as I viewed it without editing it): "A person who does not believe that deities exist; one who lacks belief in gods" and "A person who believes that no deities exist; one who denies the existence of all gods" do not really contradict what I quoted above.

Here it is as plainly as I can say it. Although it is not immediately obvious, there is a difference between 'I do not believe' and 'I believe not'. Many people dispute this and claim that they are the same and that you cannot lack a belief, only believe one way or the other. The simple answer to this is, all children are born atheists, they lack a belief in god.

You could not say all children are born agnostics because agnosticism implies a belief about the inherent provability of god's existence. It does also commonly go hand in hand with a lack of belief in god, but that does not define it.

Green Hand Guy

monument wrote: »

And what on earth does your "need" for a god, or lack of a need for one, have to do with there being one or not?

I'm not talking in terms of personal need, I'm talking in terms of general need. I do not see why the universe would need a god to exist. I don't see any evidence that one ever existed. Therefore, I believe that there is none. Please explain how this makes me closed minded?

I don't believe there's life on Venus either. I choose not to believe that, because the inhospitable conditions of the planet would make it extremely difficult for any life to form. Am I closed minded for believing this too, or is it only when God is concerned that my beliefs are considered extremist?

thusspakeblixa

Ah look, if monument wants to start a debate on atheism, head over to the atheism/agnostism forum.
DCU Atheist/Secularist soc- yay or nay?

cocoa

I'd join, but I doubt I would do much else. So... yay

monument

Sorry Niall for half hijacking the thread... here's a question on your idea... in the content of setting up a society what do you mean by this:

I mean I'm completely open to any ideas for activities. Spreading the word of secularism through "Atheist bus" style advertising, anyone?

...does this mean the society would be trying to convert people or not?

And also another idea above said:

hold debates from time to time when a major relevant issue comes up (for e.g. stem cell research in UCC, etc.)

... that's one thing, but would the society also come out with firm positions on such matters?

cocoa wrote: »

The simple answer to this is, all children are born atheists

I don't agree.

Atheism is a position or a belief. Not the lack of a position or a belief. Not having any concept of what a god is -- at least in the way we would think of one -- a newly born child would not be able to have any position.

You could not say all children are born agnostics

Thank god, I mean...

Green Hand Guy wrote: »

I'm not talking in terms of personal need, I'm talking in terms of general need. I do not see why the universe would need a god to exist. I don't see any evidence that one ever existed. Therefore, I believe that there is none. Please explain how this makes me closed minded?

The point still stands, slightly altered: What on earth does the universe's need for a god, or lack of a need for one, have to do with there being one or not?

And I never said anything about you being closed minded, or did I? No, I don't think so. On atheists in general, I've already said:

I'm confused how a firmly closed position such as atheism has anything to do with freethinking. Really, what has a closed position have to do with freethinking?

And, no, I'm not saying, nor implying, atheists are closed minded. But if they are open-minded, their atheist side (ie the closed position that there is no god) is most likely blinkered to their open-minded side.

Compared to agnostics, and even compared to most religious moderates, atheists are talking a clear unchangeable position. Compared to agnostics, and even compared to many religious moderates, atheists are extremists.

I don't believe there's life on Venus either. I choose not to believe that, because the inhospitable conditions of the planet would make it extremely difficult for any life to form. Am I closed minded for believing this too, or is it only when God is concerned that my beliefs are considered extremist?

Sorry, I'm spending too much time thinking about why one would have beliefs on there being life on Venus or not.

cocoa

monument wrote: »

I don't agree.

Atheism is a position or a belief. Not the lack of a position or a belief. Not having any concept of what a god is -- at least in the way we would think of one -- a newly born child would not be able to have any position.



Thank god, I mean...

Well at this stage we simply disagree... All I can say is anyone else I've met would define what you believe to be atheism as Anti-theism (no, the A does not stand for Anti, it means lack). atheism is the neutral state, it describes the lack of a belief, just like a newly born child, it is not a belief in anything, but a lack of it.

I would also point to the definitions which did state, a lack of a belief in god, you still think atheism must be a position of belief and not a lack thereof?

If you want to continue the discussion without being off-topic I suggest we do so in this thread. If you would not describe a newly born child as an atheist, what term would you use to describe a lack of belief?

Green Hand Guy

Anyway, back on topic, yeah, I'd join the society.

monument

One last thing -- Whatever about the definition of atheist, comparing a conscious decision by an adult (or a teen, or a mature child) to a young child who has not yet made any decision is pointless.

With your use of the word 'neutral,' your view on atheism is like Ireland's neutral stance for WW2, a conscious decision. A baby would be like a tribe in some forest without any link or knowledge of the war. So, if you were to still call them neutral, it would be quite a different kind, with no real link to each other.

thusspakeblixa

monument wrote: »

Sorry Niall for half hijacking the thread... here's a question on your idea... in the content of setting up a society what do you mean by this:

I mean I'm completely open to any ideas for activities. Spreading the word of secularism through "Atheist bus" style advertising, anyone?

...does this mean the society would be trying to convert people or not?

And also another idea above said:

hold debates from time to time when a major relevant issue comes up (for e.g. stem cell research in UCC, etc.)

... that's one thing, but would the society also come out with firm positions on such matters?

Heh... half hijacking?!
Yeah the "atheist bus" comment was tongue-in-cheek. I myself think the people behind the "atheist bus" idea in London are going about things the wrong way.
Any atheist/secularist/skeptic/freethinker society I'm involved in will not try to convert people at all, we will merely "lead by example". If people wish to follow our example that's up to them.
I don't think that the society would come out with strong positions on matters: the Islamic soc and Christian Union don't, so I don't see a need for any statements.
However, I will leave that open to any members. The reason why is that a lot of people are annoyed with Ultrasound's methods of recruitment and may wish to combat these with counter-recruitment.
If it were up to me, we would not be making any statements unless asked/forced to do so.

I will e-mail the chaplain over the weekend, to see if the inter-faith committee has any advice to give.

cocoa

Well, personally, I think this thread alone is proof that you could get some nice interesting discussions in the soc, and I'm always open to making new friends

So, I'd wholly support the soc, though I can't guarantee giving any big amount of time to it... But I'll definitely be one of your initial 20

Dave!

monument wrote: »

atheist
someone who believes that God or gods do not exist

agnostic
someone who does not know, or believes that it is impossible to know, whether a god exists

I believe that it is impossible to know whether a god exists.
But I believe that gods do not exist.

How is that incompatible? Dare I say most people would accept that knowing whether a god exists is impossible. So based on the evidence available you either (a) believe one exists, so you're a theist, (b) believe that one does NOT exist, so you're an atheist, or (c) you are undecided on the matter, which I believe is the 'common' definition of agnostic, ie. "I don't know".

Your definition for agnostic says "someone who does not know, OR believes it is impossible to know..." So again, one could clearly be an agnostic atheist, theist, or, for larfs, an agnostic agnostic

What's the problem?

c0rk3r

I dont see the point really but if you can create a constitution by setting out aims, objectives, structures and rules of membership.Then democratically elect committee members and officers and attract 20 students who wish to become a member of the society then i dont see why not.

Emailing the chaplin about setting up an atheists/agnostic is taking the piss. Its a characteristic of most militant atheists who just wish to antagonize those of different faiths.Also suggesting that science students are atheists is a fallacy

thusspakeblixa

c0rk3r wrote: »

Emailing the chaplin about setting up an atheists/agnostic is taking the piss. Its a characteristic of most militant atheists who just wish to antagonize those of different faiths.Also suggesting that science students are atheists is a fallacy

I fully realise that.
I should really use <pisstake> </pisstake> tags...

c0rk3r

A sarcastic atheist. Thats a new one.

DemocAnarchis

c0rk3r wrote: »

I dont see the point really but if you can create a constitution by setting out aims, objectives, structures and rules of membership.Then democratically elect committee members and officers and attract 20 students who wish to become a member of the society then i dont see why not.

Emailing the chaplin about setting up an atheists/agnostic is taking the piss. Its a characteristic of most militant atheists who just wish to antagonize those of different faiths.Also suggesting that science students are atheists is a fallacy

Who pissed in your cornflakes? We have Islamic Soc and Christian Union, and you could argue that they already have venues to discuss their beliefs ie their respective mosques and churches. Just because you find the idea of atheism and agnosticism unpaletable doesn't mean that others aren't interested, as judging from the responses here some clearly are.

I don't see why people keep referring to athiests as evangelical and militant. There are a minority who are, no more so than in a religious denomination. I am an athiest in the sense that I do not believe there is evidence to support god's existance, but I have no problem with someone believing in theism. I think a sceptical attitude is healthy, as long as it is respectful to others belief systems.

Suggesting all science students are atheists is a fallacy. Suggesting that a higher proportion of atheists in science courses than the general population is probably correct, from my own experience. I know that there are definately more agnostics/athiests in my (science) degree than the national average (Think I heard it cited at 5%). This may just be a function of a youthful demographic. Could be an interesting point to discuss in a society dedicated to such matters

Yusuf Mirza

http://www.alislam.org/library/articles/ExistenceOfGod_07.pdf


OMG guys check this out

thusspakeblixa

Yusuf Mirza wrote: »

http://www.alislam.org/library/articles/ExistenceOfGod_07.pdf


OMG guys check this out

Is that meant to convert me?
Do you think that after reading that, I will just throw away my own beliefs?
What did you hope to achieve when you clicked the "attach" button?

cocoa

lol, do you think I'll read that?

most of the time any link preceded or followed by 'OMG guys check this out' is a virus... This doesn't appear to be any exception... :P

adamski8

well i would join but it seems like its a moderate society, if it was one where we actively try convert ppl around campus by telling students they are idiots for believing and bascially make fun of the idea of god id be in.
its not fair ive been searching for a extremist atheist group to join but there seems none even though most religious types always tell me all atheists are like me but i cant find him. i feel like we are being supressed and that all moderate atheists always saying they arent out to get theists. i believe some atheists just say they arent like me to save face in front of other atheists.
If i had my way the club would be fun; we could go outside churches and have a few cans while laughing at them, bible bonfire nights, prank phone calls to scientology nuts, have a big meat dinner on good friday, fundraisers for abortions etc we could even eat lots of chocolate during lent that would show them

thusspakeblixa

adamski8 wrote: »

If i had my way the club would be fun; we could go outside churches and have a few cans while laughing at them, bible bonfire nights, prank phone calls to scientology nuts, have a big meat dinner on good friday, fundraisers for abortions etc we could even eat lots of chocolate during lent that would show them

...we won't be doing that... :rolleyes:
It's not that moderate atheists "hide" themselves to save face, it's that we (well I anyway) want a world where people are tolerant and can believe what they want to believe.
I find religion fascinating, in the same way people have a fascination with Celtic or Norse mythology. Getting rid of it would mean I'd have a lot less to not believe in. :P
By having your "fun" you are lowering yourself to the level of the religious extremists.
Relax, calm down, live and let live, maaaaaan.
:pac:

cocoa

adamski8 wrote: »

well i would join but it seems like its a moderate society, if it was one where we actively try convert ppl around campus by telling students they are idiots for believing and bascially make fun of the idea of god id be in.
its not fair ive been searching for a extremist atheist group to join but there seems none even though most religious types always tell me all atheists are like me but i cant find him. i feel like we are being supressed and that all moderate atheists always saying they arent out to get theists. i believe some atheists just say they arent like me to save face in front of other atheists.
If i had my way the club would be fun; we could go outside churches and have a few cans while laughing at them, bible bonfire nights, prank phone calls to scientology nuts, have a big meat dinner on good friday, fundraisers for abortions etc we could even eat lots of chocolate during lent that would show them

I only speak for myself here but I personally wouldn't be at all interested in that kind of society, in fact I'd be worried about even being associated with it... Just because I'm an atheist doesn't mean I have no concept of understanding the feelings or beliefs of others.

All you're talking about is pissing off other people in order to amuse yourself, in order to make yourself feel better about your own stance. Personally, I'm quite happy to be tolerant and allow others to believe whatever they want to, it doesn't bother me. But, and here's the important part, neither does it lower my opinion of them as people. The human mind is amazingly complex and I'm a firm believer that, even though someone may disagree with me belief-wise, and even though I have no concept of how they can and how that can make sense, they may still be just as smart / wise / clever / intelligent as me and maybe more so, in other areas. you need to lose your atheist superiority complex, it'll do you no good.

adamski8

well it looks like ill just have to battle religion any means nessecary and you guys can benefit from it, ye can thank me later I dont see why we have to respect religion if someone thinks the earth is flat ill call them stupid and if they think the tooth fairy is real ill laugh at them....my niece was quite upset but its good for her in the long run. maybe ill join and run for leader of the society on my principles

Grudaire

adamski8 wrote: »

well it looks like ill just have to battle religion any means nessecary and you guys can benefit from it, ye can thank me later I dont see why we have to respect religion if someone thinks the earth is flat ill call them stupid and if they think the tooth fairy is real ill laugh at them....my niece was quite upset but its good for her in the long run. maybe ill join and run for leader of the society on my principles

Cool... you can have joint meetings with the Beat Up Atheists Society :pac:

adamski8

yes these supposed atheists seem to be defending religion and its rites.....i may have to smite them along the way

monument

thusspakeblixa wrote: »

Yeah the "atheist bus" comment was tongue-in-cheek. I myself think the people behind the "atheist bus" idea in London are going about things the wrong way.

That's good to hear.

But quite frankly it's hard to know if you were being serious about it or not, and if you're not clear what the point of all of this is, then how are people suppose to make up their minds if they want to join or not?

Dave! wrote: »

How is that incompatible?

Of the definitions you quoted there, one is taking a clear position and the other is not. You can not both fully believe something, and be unsure of it. You are one of the other.

Just to be clear on this, saying you believe is saying you think it is true. If you are unsure you would say such. Personally I'd always avoid the word due to its religious connotations, and I'm always sceptical of those who feel the need to have a belief in something they can't prove.

I've yet to see any authoritative definitions posted other than those I posted. But just as I'll say to any body with beliefs, you can belief what ever you like. If that extends to twisting the English language that's up to you really.

DemocAnarchis wrote: »

Who pissed in your cornflakes? We have Islamic Soc and Christian Union, and you could argue that they already have venues to discuss their beliefs ie their respective mosques and churches. Just because you find the idea of atheism and agnosticism unpaletable doesn't mean that others aren't interested, as judging from the responses here some clearly are.

Next thing you'll be wanting mosques and churches because they have them?

And where did c0rk3r show any unpalatable views for atheism or agnosticism?

I don't see why people keep referring to athiests as evangelical and militant.

While most people in the country call them self Catholics, most will be very moderate and another whole lot will non-practising. Lots don't care really. Compare that to atheists and atheists, or at least a larger percentage of them, look a lot like they fall somewhere between the devoted religious and religious extremists.

adamd164

Good luck with the society guys, I hope it comes to fruition.

I am involved with the UCC soc, we just submitted our application last week.

If you have any questions feel free to drop me a line.

adamd164

monument wrote: »

Compare that to atheists and atheists, or at least a larger percentage of them, look a lot like they fall somewhere between the devoted religious and religious extremists.

Not sure if you've noticed but the education system in this country is almost entirely run at primary school level by the Catholic Church Limited, who have free reign to tell kids whatever fantasy tales they wish. As long as this is the case, non-religious persons will be entirely justified in coming out in opposition and defending their right to a secular society. As should the religious, but of course in practice it's groups like Atheist Ireland that will be pushing for it at national level.

I couldn't care less what someone believes in the privacy of their own home. Just don't try to indoctrinate by kids with it and we don't have a problem.

adamd164

c0rk3r wrote: »

A sarcastic atheist. Thats a new one.

Bigot.

monument

adamd164 wrote: »

Not sure if you've noticed but the education system in this country is almost entirely run at primary school level by the Catholic Church Limited, who have free reign to tell kids whatever fantasy tales they wish. As long as this is the case, non-religious persons will be entirely justified in coming out in opposition and defending their right to a secular society. As should the religious, but of course in practice it's groups like Atheist Ireland that will be pushing for it at national level.

I couldn't care less what someone believes in the privacy of their own home. Just don't try to indoctrinate by kids with it and we don't have a problem.

And as I have already said: You can be religious and church-going and still be in favour of secularism.

Start an secularism group if you want to promote such. If secularism is your primary goal, starting an atheist group is a diversion.

adamd164 wrote: »

Bigot.

I don't see how what c0rk3r said (ie "A sarcastic atheist. Thats a new one") counts as being a bigot.

Hmm... isn't being overly sensitive is another trait of the devoted/extremists religious?

Dave!

monument wrote: »

Of the definitions you quoted there, one is taking a clear position and the other is not. You can not both fully believe something, and be unsure of it. You are one of the other.

You're twisting it a bit

Clearly the question of whether any gods exist is really really difficult to answer, I'm sure most people would agree that it's impossible to be able to say definitively one way or another. You'd agree?

So it's a given, then, that most people are agnostic in the following respect:

someone who ... believes that it is impossible to know...whether a god exists

So if you feel like it you can analyze the evidence and the arguments and based on that come to the conclusion that: a god exists, no god exists, or you are unsure whether or not a god exists.

monument wrote: »

Just to be clear on this, saying you believe is saying you think it is true. If you are unsure you would say such. Personally I'd always avoid the word due to its religious connotations, and I'm always sceptical of those who feel the need to have a belief in something they can't prove.

Presented with the evidence you'll surely come to some conclusion even though it's not verifiable.

For example, if someone said to you that there is a tiger in your attic, would you believe them? For argument's sake, you can't go up to the attic to check. So there could be one there or there could not, it's not really verifiable.

Based on some evidence (say: you've been up there before and there was no tiger, you don't think anyone who has access to the house/attic would be able to acquire a tiger or get it in the attic, you'd probably hear it making noise up there, etc.) you'll come to a conclusion. You'll probably say that you don't believe there is a tiger in the attic.

Wow that was a weird analogy