Atheists/Agnostics?

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

adamd164

monument wrote: »

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

Stereotyping the personalities of a group of people based on their views on religion. That's bigotry.

I'd never come on here and say "Catholics are boring" or "Jews are such cynics"; because although I find Christianity and Judaism ridiculous as belief systems, it tells me little or nothing about the idiosyncracies of the individuals within said groups or their own reasons for being part of them.

It's also a cheap ad hominem argument, btw. Rather than going round proclaiming that all atheists are X, Y, or Z, our friend would be better served tackling the issue at hand; namely why is that he feels atheism to be a fallacious philosophical standpoint.

Cy_Revenant

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.

You make a fair point. Certainly, when the majority of students attending schools came from Catholic families, -I firmly believe that a parent may raise a child in any manner they wish, including religious beliefs, but that is a discussion for another time,- it wouldn't have been as problem, as the school was teaching the child what he would have been learning at home, or in the church anyway.

There is certainly an argument for a change in what is taught in Primary school classrooms. How can a teacher justify spending time preparing a class for communion or confirmation if a sizeable proportion of the class are a different faith? For the moment at least, many classrooms are likely entirely Catholic, though a great number are not, and a further shift is inevitable.

I don't know how things are in second level schools. For my part, I remember being taught history and details about many faiths other than my own. There were also discussions on other matters such as drug use, abortion and other things. Though I don't know what its like these days.

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

Would I be incorrect in saying that the right to believe whatever you want is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? You're free to believe whatever you wish about people regarding their own beliefs, but I can't see you winning many votes with that attitude.

AlkalineAcid

Half of this thread is just an argument about definitions...

monument

Dave! wrote: »

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

No, I don't think I am twisting.

But I agree that "most people would agree that it's impossible to be able to say definitively one way or another" and I also agree that from that it is a given "that most people are agnostic" -- to one level or another -- in the above respect.

In the same vain, and, directly following from that, I maintain that one can not be both agnostic and atheist and thus think many of the latter incorrectly identify them self as such.

Dave! wrote: »

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

It's also a massivly flawed analogy. You can go up to your attic and look for the tiger. There is noting stopping you. A tiger in the attic is not comparable to 'the god/s question'.

adamd164 wrote: »

Stereotyping the personalities of a group of people based on their views on religion. That's bigotry.

I'd never come on here and say "Catholics are boring" or "Jews are such cynics"; because although I find Christianity and Judaism ridiculous as belief systems, it tells me little or nothing about the idiosyncracies of the individuals within said groups or their own reasons for being part of them.

It's also a cheap ad hominem argument, btw. Rather than going round proclaiming that all atheists are X, Y, or Z, our friend would be better served tackling the issue at hand; namely why is that he feels atheism to be a fallacious philosophical standpoint.

You'll find that stereotyping is just that, it does not automatically lead to bigotry. Also, your linking atheists to religion is strange since others here seem to have been telling me it is a lack of belief rather than a belief.

Unless you know c0rk3r from another thread or wherever, I don't see how you can make the leap from what I can see s/he has said on this thread to your idea that s/he thinks or "feels" that atheism is "a fallacious philosophical standpoint." Again, unless you know more of him/her than what has been said on this this thread, for all you know c0rk3r could be an atheists. Do you have extra info or are you making very large presumptions?

AlkalineAcid wrote: »

Half of this thread is just an argument about definitions...

When it comes down to it, half of life is about definitions

c0rk3r

I’ll just ignore the blow ins. If you want to discuss nauseating, rhetoric and tired clichés why not visit the A&A forum or even the Islam/Christianity forum. The thread was about setting up a A&A society in DCU. Funnily enough today i passed the inter faith building and noticed the different faiths it caters for. There was a circular sign divided up into 6 pie shaped slices within each was a symbol for each religion. Star of david, Cross etc etc and the last slice was empty. Hmm maybe you guys could use the building afterall, get some praying in.

From my point of view the only reason for setting up the society in the first place is because there’s a Christianity/islam society. Fair enough. Then asked about a certain stance you respond by saying "oh the christianty/islam society hasn’t released any statements. So whats the function of the society? A series of reactions to whatever the religious societies are engaged in? This is my problem with Atheism, its really not about anything just a disagreement on whether a god exists or not. Its just a stance. Its not about anything.

As a society how would you survive without being submerged in boredom ? I dont see what there is to discuss since your more then likely in agreement with most topics. It works here and generates alot of debate because people have a different viewpoint. How will it work within the society ?

Im slightly apathetic about the whole thing. Would like to see how it works out though.

monument wrote: »

for all you know c0rk3r could be an atheists.

As a scientist i could only take Darwins position on the matter.

thusspakeblixa

c0rk3r wrote: »

From my point of view the only reason for setting up the society in the first place is because there’s a Christianity/islam society. Fair enough. Then asked about a certain stance you respond by saying "oh the christianty/islam society hasn’t released any statements. So whats the function of the society? A series of reactions to whatever the religious societies are engaged in? This is my problem with Atheism, its really not about anything just a disagreement on whether a god exists or not. Its just a stance. Its not about anything.

The function of the society is to provide a platform for atheists and secularists to meet likeminded people. Ultimately I'm of the belief that the members of a society should have a say in what activities it does (I'm involved in the running of 2 other societies and it seems to work well) so I can't say what we do until I talk to any prospective members.
The certain stance I was asked about was "will the atheist/SASS society issue statements denouncing religion". I replied and said I can't see why we would as the Christian Union and Islamic Soc do not (however, I did leave it open- one man does not a society make). Why you see that as a point against our existence I fail to see.
If Atheism is a stance, so are Christianity, Islam, Druidism, Asatru, Baha'i etc. What Atheism is about is not believing in any deity.
Looking at it from your viewpoint: why do you not object to the various other societies based around a "stance" on campus? Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, Sinn Fein- all based around a stance on a topic or a number of topics.
Don't see your problem with us tbh.
I do, however, echo your sentiment in that this thread be discussion for/against the establishment of the society.

monument

c0rk3r wrote: »

As a scientist i could only take Darwins position on the matter.

Good to have another fencer-sitter around, err.. I mean, agnostic.

public_enemy

The whole idea of this society just seems a little silly to me. One of the benefits of being atheist is that you don't have to belong to any organised group of people with a belief system. Structuring a society around it and having regular meetings and events just makes it seem oddly like a religion.

I guess the real problem with it is that I can't really think of any reason why I'd want to hang out with atheists/agnostics any more than I'd want to hang out with anyone else. For one thing, religious discussions are always far more interesting if you're having them with people who don't agree with you.

Black hole sun

Id be intrested in this id say youd easily get the members needed to set it up.

Diarmaid07

Just so you all know, DCU denied the request to set up one of these last year - One of my friends tried set it up.

I believe it was veto'd by the fellow who sends out the interfaith emails.


Perhaps a different approach, such as a society of followers of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, would be more effective?