Rationalist Society

Dubhghaillix

Hi,

Myself and a few others have been looking to start a Society for Atheists, Agnostics and Free thinkers this year. We need the support of 15 current students to found the society. We've a facebook page set up at the moment but support is hard to come by.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=111931253845&ref=ts

If anyone is interested please contact charlesoduill@gmail.com with your name, student number and Course.

Many Thanks,

Charles Doyle, 2nd Year Arts.

An Bradán Feasa

What kind of events would your society be organising?

raah!

rationalism
1. the doctrine that knowledge is gained only through the reason, a faculty independent of experience.
2. the doctrine that all knowledge is expressible in self-evident propositions or their consequences. — rationalist, n. — rationalistic, adj.

The name of your society is perhaps ambiguous if it is meant to be for "Atheists, Agnostics and Free thinkers" , none of which are inherently rationalistic.

Dubhghaillix

It's mostly just to create a community for Non-Believers within the college. Hopefully we'd have debates and discussions on important topics like Human Rights, Freedom From Religion, Separation of Church and State, Arguments against the Supernatural and such. The aim would be to raise awareness of Atheism in general around the University and to let people know that you don't have to believe in the supernatural to be a moraly upright person.

Dubhghaillix

Perhaps it would clarify things if I explained that I don't give a flying toss about your opinion. Atheism, Agnosticism and Free Thought philosophies are quite rational. We believe things based on what we observe in the world around us, not on ancient texts or fabulous stories. We see no evidence for the supernatural, therefore we do not assume that it exists. We see evidence for Gravity, for Evolution, for Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, so we believe that they are true. If the evidence contradicts what we believe, then we go with what the evidence tells us, regardless of what our imaginations want to believe. That seems quite rational to me, and to the 175,000 or so other Non-Believers in this country. I posted this thread so that Non-Believers can help start our little Godless Society, not so you could bounce a ball and hope that I jump. Now I've got an estimated 53 years left on this planet and I don't intend to spend any more of my time listening to someone looking to stir up controversy just for the sake of it. Good-day.

raah!

Ah yes, that's very good. There is a difference between being "rational" and "rationalist" , believing things "based on what we observe in the world around us" is empiricism, which is the opposite to rationalism. That is the reason I pointed it out to you, so you don't appear as a fool to everyone.

It was not my intention to bounce any ball. I was simply pointing out a definition.

Dubhghaillix

Apologies. This is why I shouldn't write on the internet. I always get my wires crossed and wind up looking like a tool. We picked rationalist soc because it's less provocative than Atheist Society. And of course, expecting that someone would attack the idea, I went on the offensive without thinking. Damnit, well I'm certainly not qualified to start a rationalist Society, that was very irrational. Nevertheless, there will hopefully be a Society for people who do not Believe in the supernatural. If anyone wants to join that, they are more than welcome to. I have to go with the evidence in this case, I'm mistaken. Great I embarrass the thing before it's even made. (Kev, if you're reading this, this is why I don't want to be the auditor!!!!)

kevinmcinerney

but doesnt rationalism also just mean "any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification"....are u talking about the strict philosophical meaning......surely people would understand....do u think it would cause problems....maybe a society for reason would be better?

Dubhghaillix

Difficult to say. Apparently we'll have to re-think the name to avoid looking stupid (again). I've seen "rationalist" used as a blanket term for all non-believers and sceptics a few times. Someone who uses reason, and rightly wants to know why something is so, instead of just taking other peoples word for it. But I'd consider Empirical Evidence an vital part of rational thinking. You get the evidence first, then form your theory. Darwin's beard! The dictionary is against our title, whatever shall we do?!!! Easy, change the name. ****CORRECTION**** This is the GODLESS SOCIETY!!!!! For people who've seen no empirical evidence for the supernatural, and decide that it probably doesn't exist, and people who've thought about the supernatural rationally and see no reason to believe alike. That seems fair.

kevinmcinerney

hmmm better think on it....society for science reason and secepticism isnt bad.....

raah!

Atheist and agnostic society is one name .

Anyway, here is a forum which you may be interested in http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=614

ZorbaTehZ

That's insane, I was just talking to a guy I know about starting a soc for atheists... you've got my vote!

dapto1

I don't really see the point of this society, but then again I don't see the point to a lot of them.

Flamed Diving

Surely there are existing college societies such as this, with better names.



I like A&A, actually. You could have some fun with that, in the posters, using the logo for Automobile Association, etc.

Dubhghaillix

Ya, talks are ongoing to resolve the name crisis :P. The Apostasy Society is most popular, since it'll confuse the most people . Ya, there's not much point to any society really, seeing as how the condition of life lacks a point. But sure ya might as well make the most of it!

Lockstep

I don't really see what such a society would achieve tbh.

I can't really see what it would do beyond discussions and debates and these are already served by Lit and Deb, Lawsoc etc.

Then again, there's loads of societies which are the same.

Flamed Diving

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I don't really see what such a society would achieve tbh.

I can't really see what it would do beyond discussions and debates and these are already served by Lit and Deb, Lawsoc etc.

Then again, there's loads of societies which are the same.

I think a sense of association might be enough, for some.

Dubhghaillix

Ya, that's basically the idea here. Meet like minded people etc etc.

I'd definitely be up for this, was thinking about doing it myself. Would be interesting to meet like minded individuals and have a sense of community similar to the religious societies on campus.

Could be cajoled into helping set it up...

Lockstep

I'd say there'd need to be more to a society than just being a social club.

THere's a few aspiring societies attempting to set up (YES for example), so there'd be a few different ones trying to get recognition and funding.

THey'd really need to show what they'd bring to society life rather than just providing a group to associate with.

kickoutthejams

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I'd say there'd need to be more to a society than just being a social club.

THere's a few aspiring societies attempting to set up (YES for example), so there'd be a few different ones trying to get recognition and funding.

THey'd really need to show what they'd bring to society life rather than just providing a group to associate with.

The society would contribute to society life by promoting rational thinking and secularism through talks, debates and guest speakers.

It would also provide a social outlet for non religious students similar to those provided by the Christian Union and the Muslim Youth Society.

Atheists are the least trusted minority in the US (http://www.asanet.org/cs/root/topnav/press/atheists_are_distrusted)
and this shows that awareness urgently needs to be raised among religious people.

I reckon thats plenty contribution to society life...

Lockstep

Deleted User wrote: »

The society would contribute to society life by promoting rational thinking and secularism through talks, debates and guest speakers.

But these can already be achieved by existing groups such as Lit and Deb (they've debated things like Sharia Law as well as bringing in a few nutjob fundamentalist Christians)
Colleges are fairly strapped for cash as is, (we've the most societies out of any college in Ireland IIRC)

Deleted User wrote: »

It would also provide a social outlet for non religious students similar to those provided by the Christian Union and the Muslim Youth Society.

I'm not too up on either of those societies, but I'd imagine their social aspect is a side effect rather than the reason they are societies.

Deleted User wrote: »

Atheists are the least trusted minority in the US (http://www.asanet.org/cs/root/topnav/press/atheists_are_distrusted)
and this shows that awareness urgently needs to be raised among religious people.

I reckon thats plenty contribution to society life...

We're not really the US,
To be fair, we're not the US where religion plays an incredibly large role in everything from daily life to who you vore for.

kickoutthejams

kickoutthejams wrote: »

But these can already be achieved by existing groups such as Lit and Deb (they've debated things like Sharia Law as well as bringing in a few nutjob fundamentalist Christians)
Colleges are fairly strapped for cash as is, (we've the most societies out of any college in Ireland IIRC)

That is a decent point, but with Lit and Deb you'll get 1 debate a year on these issues, if you're lucky, and there's alot more to them than that.

In relation to the money side of things, there are loads of societies, but the number who are active and actually require funding on a regular basis is quite small, basically I'd say the cost per society to the university is roughly similar to that in other colleges

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I'm not too up on either of those societies, but I'd imagine their social aspect is a side effect rather than the reason they are societies.

Not really, a friend of mine is head of the CU, and their bread and butter is getting speakers in and the odd trip to conferences around the country, it's mostly for like minded people to meet, socialise and discuss religion. I would propose something similar for atheists and agnostics

kickoutthejams wrote: »

We're not really the US,
To be fair, we're not the US where religion plays an incredibly large role in everything from daily life to who you vore for.

I'll concede that one, definitely not the same over here, but there are still people who don't really understand atheism or atheists.

The main reason I would love to see a society like this would be to meet others I could chat to about atheism, maybe get some debate going with the religious societies, stuff like that.

aguaclara

i'd be up for this, definitely. we could link up with atheist ireland and help out with some of their projects, have a proper debate about the blasphemy debacle, and generally promote the whole separation of chuch and state ideal... think of the potential for guest speakers!! dawkins, hitchens, sam harris, pz myers...we could even get terry eagleton in and just heckle him mercilessly for being an incorrigible twit.

aguaclara

i would however strongly advise that you call it something along the lines of atheist and agnostic society. if you call it the rationalist society, it may well attract militant christiany types who are determined to show up and argue their case that they can be rational etc, which is all well and good except that i (and the other people who have responded favourably here) would want a society of like-minded heathens with a common interest and goal, rather than just another forum for believers to argue with non-believers, of which there are plenty already. ultimately, it gets pretty lonely being an atheist and i want to meet some others.

Flamed Diving

aguaclara wrote: »

i would however strongly advise that you call it something along the lines of atheist and agnostic society. if you call it the rationalist society, it may well attract militant christiany types who are determined to show up and argue their case that they can be rational etc, which is all well and good except that i (and the other people who have responded favourably here) would want a society of like-minded heathens with a common interest and goal, rather than just another forum for believers to argue with non-believers, of which there are plenty already. ultimately, it gets pretty lonely being an atheist and i want to meet some others.

However, I would advise against implying that the religious are somehow not welcome to come along and look. It would give the society a bad image, and would make you seem very unreasonable, which is kind of the opposite to what you are wishing for. In fact, once you are up and running, and I like to think you would hold discussions/debates, with both sides of the fence being represented. There is no point in having a soc with a bunch of atheists, hiding under a pile of coats.

I think there seems to be a few people willing to give this a go, do people want to meet up and have a chat about it?

aguaclara

I like to think you would hold discussions/debates, with both sides of the fence being represented

that's a noble idea alright, and i can't speak for others, but personally i'm no more inclined to debate with theists about the existence of god than i am to argue about whether the earth is flat or if the tooth fairy is doing her job properly. i like to think we'd start off from the point of "god is a fiction" and move on from there to the more important stuff, like getting all the religious twaddle out of our constitution, keeping religious delusions out of our laws and in the delusional's head, getting the catholic folk out of our schools, and generally making ireland a properly secular state where you're free to pursue religion if you want but can easily avoid it if you don't.

we can't exclude people, because it's a university society. everyone is welcome and i absolutely support anyone and everyone's right to come. but you might as well make it clear what kind of a society it is and who it's aimed at.

also, how many of these debates have you seen? they tend to go something along the lines of "god isn't real", "yes he is", "well, it's extremely likely that's he's just a human invention, and we have all this evidence: a,b,c,d...x,y,z." "well, i believe in it because i have faith and you can't stop me. moreover, i'm going to force my beliefs on you. and i may sue your ass for €25000 if i can get my friends angry enough. so there."

...maybe i should just set up a post-theist society, for myself and the one other evangelical atheist on campus...

Flamed Diving

aguaclara wrote: »

that's a noble idea alright, and i can't speak for others, but personally i'm no more inclined to debate with theists about the existence of god than i am to argue about whether the earth is flat or if the tooth fairy is doing her job properly..

And this isn't cowardly? What kind of message does this send? What about the people who attend the debate and are fence-sitters? What of when they hear that the A&A Soc won't debate the religious?

aguaclara

do you think the christian society debates whether god exists? do you think muslim soc/muslim youth (i'm not up on society names) sit around and argue about whether allah might actually be just in their heads? i don't know, i've never gone to their meetings, but i doubt it. i would imagine that they agree that they believe in something and then discuss the corrollaries of that.

my point is that there are umpteen forums for debating belief/non-belief up and down. i'd be more than happy to talk to other atheists about what it's like being an atheist in ireland, and indeed the psychological benefits of believing in an omniscient being (which are proven and documented). but i'd really rather not meet up with religious folk and have to listen to the same tired debate again. it's pointless, it usually ends in stalemate and anyway to properly argue a point with someone usually requires giving their point of view some credence. i don't. i think it's ludicrous. i will not argue about tooth fairies.

that said, i think your version of the society is the one that will come about. irish atheists/agnostics tend to be a lot more tentative in their lack of faith and nervous about causing offence. i'd be very interested to see though.

also i'm curious: what makes you think that refusing to argue with religious people is cowardly? why are you so concerned about the message that it would send? is other people's opinion of the society of concern to you? i'm not attacking you by the way, i'm genuinely curious.

Flamed Diving

aguaclara wrote: »

do you think the christian society debates whether god exists?

It doesn't matter what they debate. The very essence of this soc is a group of people who do not believe (or are unsure) of gods existence. The question is why wouldn't this society ask this question?

aguaclara wrote: »

also i'm curious: what makes you think that refusing to argue with religious people is cowardly? why are you so concerned about the message that it would send? is other people's opinion of the society of concern to you? i'm not attacking you by the way, i'm genuinely curious.

What is the point in having a society, especially one that claims to be 'freethinking', if you are simply going to hide away in rooms and pat each other on the back about your agreements? The society should not only serve the purpose of an atheist old boys club. It should serve as a forum where freethought is promoted, and that will require allowing the religious to debate their views, if they wish to.

aguaclara

Flamed Diving wrote: »

It doesn't matter what they debate.

indeed it doesn't. but it's unlikely that they hem and haw about whether god isn't real. from that, you might deduce that an atheist society mightn't spend too much time mulling over the possibility that god might exist. i wouldn't expect them to. perhaps you would.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

The very essence of this soc is a group of people who do not believe (or are unsure) of gods existence. The question is why wouldn't this society ask this question?

of course the society would ask this question. there is much evidence for the various gods' being human inventions and that would be make up at least one fascinating meeting. what would be pointless is meeting up with believers and arguing back and forth about a topic on which neither side is going to back down, and one side of which is completely dogmatic and unprovable.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

What is the point in having a society, especially one that claims to be 'freethinking', if you are simply going to hide away in rooms and pat each other on the back about your agreements?

the point of it - as I've said in two previous posts - would be to pursue a secular society. for example, our minister for justice has just passed an amendment which flagrantly violates our freedom of speech. this presents an opportunity for talks, debates, a campaign, and perhaps getting involved in existing campaigns. and that's just one issue alone. you seem to envision the society as serving to debate the question of god's existence up and down; i would see it as agreeing from the get-go that god doesn't exist and moving on from there to tackle the problems in ireland that arise from religious belief permeating everything.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

It should serve as a forum where freethought is promoted, and that will require allowing the religious to debate their views, if they wish to.

the name posited for the society was the society for atheists, agnostics and freethinkers. i don't know what the op meant by freethought, but i took it to mean pretty much what wikipedia defines it as: "a philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or any other dogma."

...which would seem to preclude religion, which is by definition dogmatic. the religious have their own societies and - outside in the real world - their own actual religions, where they can debate all they want. i don't think an atheist society would be the place for them to do it. as i've said before, i speak only for myself.

Casper89

aguaclara wrote: »

indeed it doesn't. but it's unlikely that they hem and haw about whether god isn't real. from that, you might deduce that an atheist society mightn't spend too much time mulling over the possibility that god might exist. i wouldn't expect them to. perhaps you would.

the religious have their own societies and - outside in the real world - their own actual religions, where they can debate all they want. i don't think an atheist society would be the place for them to do it. as i've said before, i speak only for myself.

I agree. An atheist society should be for atheists, not just another audience for the same ole tired song; "There's no evidence God exists" "I don't need evidence, I have Faith"...BORING:(

Can anyone show me an internet forum where this discussion/'debate' has gone anywhere but in circles?

Also, I think it's quite funny that simply suggesting an atheist society is cause for a debate itself, I'm sure the Christian society just gathered like-minded people and got on with it... No "what would be the purpose?!" directed at them:p

TheCosmicFrog

I was actually hoping there would be something like this in NUIG. I'm definitely interested in joining. I know another guy who might be too. Joined the Facebook group

Aaron Hastings, First Year IT.

DroneWorker

The rational discussion of god between believers and non-believers is possible, though rare. It is even reasonable to suggest such a thing as 'god' exists. Atheism is not necessarily true, nor is theism. ‘Religion’ disfigures the division between belief and disbelief. There is the notion of a rational or philosophically coherent theism (see Parfit, Leibniz or Mackie, or even Socrates). Religion embraces a mundane and thoroughly commonplace god concept; monotheists seem to think they have an edge because they pray to just one god. That one god is no more powerful than the pantheon of old gods, and most of the positions of the old gods have been replaced with angels and saints and prophets and such. And even then this supreme god is bizarrely limited in what he (and it is invariably a ‘he’) can do. Every religion professes to possess a monopoly on truth, a truth which is unique to it alone through revelation. Taken at this very basic level you immediately have to decide on not what is ‘true’ but what ‘truth’ even means. But religious people tend not to do this, it seems to me. People who confess the faith, whatever it may be, accept the truth of people dead for centuries without question, which is, at least in the debate between ‘Flamed Diving’ and ‘Aguaclara’, the crux of the matter. Reason and rational thinking demands an enquiring mind and questions, lots of questions. Religion is open only to questions it already has answers for, answers which often to not stand up to rational inquiry. And so we have arrived at a position at which it seems religion is at war with reason.

I believe there is a place for believers in an atheism/agnostic society so long as they abide by the rules of the society, the most fundamental of which would have to be rational inquiry, and not to resort to the ‘I have faith’ non-argument. I myself have little use for the god-concept, and am thoroughly and consistently puzzled by religion though I am always looking for someone to convince me otherwise. It often amuses me how little self-proclaimed religious people know about their religion and what adherence to a particular creed actually demands so I am always on the lookout for people who actually know what they are talking about. I would dislike it if the society was self-indulgent or fanatically evangelical, a trend which Dawkins is falling prey to, though I will admit that I understand the reasons behind this and even the need for it, something which religion never proffered.

Claypigeon

Might be interested, will look into it once I get to NUIG in the coming weeks

TheCosmicFrog

DroneWorker, your words have been copied and pasted for future use

DroneWorker

TheCosmicFrog wrote: »

DroneWorker, your words have been copied and pasted for future use

I hope that this means you like what I said, not that you want to use it as evidence against me in the future... In these days of blasphemy laws one has to be careful

TheCosmicFrog

Haha, it's a good thing!

Flamed Diving

aguaclara wrote: »

you seem to envision the society as serving to debate the question of god's existence up and down

No, I don't. I actually astonished, simply astonished that a human mind could come that conclusion.

I'm leaving it there.

Casper89

Honestly people...what we really should be debating here is whether we should call ourselves the AAA (Allied Atheist Alliance), the UAA (United Atheist Alliance) or the UAL (Unified Atheist League).;)

Allied Atheist Alliance is obviously the logical choice...:pac:

DroneWorker

How about naming the society based on secular humanism rather than outright atheism? "Secular humanism is a humanist philosophy that espouses reason, ethics, and justice, and specifically rejects the supernatural and the spiritual as the basis of moral reflection and decision-making. Like other types of humanism, secular humanism is a life stance that focuses on the way human beings can lead good, happy and functional lives." -wikipedia. On the one hand it is a more accurate discription of what seems to be being discussed on this thread, and also the term might be unknown to the casually religious zelot and so the society would not be burdened by such interference. Just a thought...

DroneWorker

Flamed Diving wrote: »

No, I don't. I actually astonished, simply astonished that a human mind could come that conclusion.

I'm leaving it there.

I'm astonished at this conclusion... Don't surrender the debate, that would mean atheism wins and god loses...

I agree with "It should serve as a forum where freethought is promoted, and that will require allowing the religious to debate their views, if they wish to" (Flamed Diving) but then when someone offers a serious challenge you give up. Not the best message to send. If you believe in what you say you might try and convince proclaimed atheists as to why you believe what you believe. But it would be a mistake to attempt to convert them. Instead, puzzelingly, there is a retreat from the issue.

On the other hand, I too am somewhat amused by the use of 'freethought' by a religious believer; it is oxymoronic to a degree. The Catholic Church has haad its uses for 'freethinkers', such as Aquinas and Gregory the Great, but only if they confine themselves within the limits set down by traditional faith. Real freethinking often lead to condemnation, as happened to Galileo and Copernicus. These were men who believed in god and where driven by rational inquiry in an attempt to understand their deity. Which is amusing because their efforts encourage the reassessment of the function of the god-concept such that others arrived at atheism... Those who seek god with a rational mind are doomed to kill god with a rational answer, whether or not they intended to...

Casper89

DroneWorker wrote: »

How about naming the society based on secular humanism rather than outright atheism? "Secular humanism is a humanist philosophy that espouses reason, ethics, and justice, and specifically rejects the supernatural and the spiritual as the basis of moral reflection and decision-making. Like other types of humanism, secular humanism is a life stance that focuses on the way human beings can lead good, happy and functional lives." -wikipedia. On the one hand it is a more accurate discription of what seems to be being discussed on this thread, and also the term might be unknown to the casually religious zelot and so the society would not be burdened by such interference. Just a thought...

You totally missed my joke...:( *sniff sniff*

philologos

I have a suggestion for you, albeit I am on the other side of the fence. I believe it would be better if you referred to yourselves as NUIG Skeptics.

"Rationalists" is a bit presumptuous. It implies that no theist whatsoever can be a rationalist, or that they are incapable of reason.

Whereas "skeptics" comes across more as that you are skeptical of theistic claims, and as a result of that skepticism have decided to look at life from an irreligious viewpoint.

I find the latter to be far more respectable than the former. Another option is always NUIG Humanists, but then again many humanists are religious. Christianity is a humanist ideology, it seeks for the betterment of human beings in this world. The most accurate and the most inclusive seems to be "Skeptics".

Claypigeon

Jakkass wrote: »

I have a suggestion for you, albeit I am on the other side of the fence. I believe it would be better if you referred to yourselves as NUIG Skeptics.

"Rationalists" is a bit presumptuous. It implies that no theist whatsoever can be a rationalist, or that they are incapable of reason.

Whereas "skeptics" comes across more as that you are skeptical of theistic claims, and as a result of that skepticism have decided to look at life from an irreligious viewpoint.

I find the latter to be far more respectable than the former. Another option is always NUIG Humanists, but then again many humanists are religious. Christianity is a humanist ideology, it seeks for the betterment of human beings in this world. The most accurate and the most inclusive seems to be "Skeptics".

How you can consider someone who believes in things that are impossible to prove anything other than irrational is beyond me tbh.

Christianity is not a humanist ideology. Forcing people to do what's written in ancient literature and shunning others for not complying is not humanist. "Betterment" stops being "betterment" when it's not everyone's idea of better.

philologos

Claypigeon wrote: »

How you can consider someone who believes in things that are impossible to prove anything other than irrational is beyond me tbh.

Christianity is not a humanist ideology. Forcing people to do what's written in ancient literature and shunning others for not complying is not humanist. "Betterment" stops being "betterment" when it's not everyone's idea of better.

First point. Both positions concerning God are impossible to prove. Hence why we resort to indication. I.E What suggests to us that God is a reality, or what suggests to us that God is not a reality. There are people who argue on both sides using indication. Both standpoints cannot be absolutely proven, hence why there are still believers and skeptics in the world.

As for Christianity not being a humanist ideology. Many would disagree with you. From Erasmus to the current day there has been a Christian humanist tradition. See more here.

As for forcing people to do anything, that isn't what Christianity is or aims to do. Christianity is about a personal decision. Anyhow, that's slightly off topic.

What I do think is "NUIG Skeptics" is perhaps the best and most accurate name for the intention of the group.

Edit: Just to note this

"Betterment" stops being "betterment" when it's not everyone's idea of better.

Surely this would rule out Secular Humanism as being humanism, as rejecting God is certainly not everyones idea of better.

DroneWorker

Jakkass wrote: »

I have a suggestion for you, albeit I am on the other side of the fence. I believe it would be better if you referred to yourselves as NUIG Skeptics.

...Whereas "skeptics" comes across more as that you are skeptical of theistic claims, and as a result of that skepticism have decided to look at life from an irreligious viewpoint.

I like this idea, skepticsm is essentially doubting. It also suggests inquiry, the testing of theories and such.

Jakkass wrote: »

Another option is always NUIG Humanists, but then again many humanists are religious. Christianity is a humanist ideology, it seeks for the betterment of human beings in this world.

"Humanism - a variety of ethical theory and practice that emphasizes reason, scientific inquiry, and human fulfillment in the natural world and often rejects the importance of belief in God" -Dictionary.com
Christianity is not a humanist ideology. There are elements of Humanism in it, as there are in many other religions, but that does not necessarily mean that it is itself Humanist. I believe religious humanism was big in the first half of the 20th century but does not really exist today and modern humanism dominated by secular ideology.

Casper89, I did get the joke, I'm with the sea-otters, Allied Atheist Allegiance.

DroneWorker

Claypigeon wrote: »

How you can consider someone who believes in things that are impossible to prove anything other than irrational is beyond me tbh.

Even scientists believe in things imposilbe to prove. Take string theory. No proof of it yet, but it is used in quantum mechanics. Though in fairness, while it cannot be proved, its effects are.

Claypigeon wrote: »

Christianity is not a humanist ideology. Forcing people to do what's written in ancient literature and shunning others for not complying is not humanist. "Betterment" stops being "betterment" when it's not everyone's idea of better.

I absolutely agree.

Jakkass wrote: »

First point. Both positions concerning God are impossible to prove. Hence why we resort to indication. I.E What suggests to us that God is a reality, or what suggests to us that God is not a reality. There are people who argue on both sides using indication. Both standpoints cannot be absolutely proven, hence why there are still believers and skeptics in the world.

Indeed this is true. The problem is you have slightly modified your position from religion to faith. Your previous arguement concerned Christianity, a religion, not faith in the god-concept. There is a distinction I believe. One might happily believe in the god-concept but not necessarily in the religion. I myself, as I have said before, have no use for the god-concept, and I do doubt that such a thing exists, but I will not adamantly proclaim that it cannot exist. I do however believe that religion, though it has many good points, is and was on the whole harmful to humanity. I am highly skeptical of the origins, morals and transmission of religious texts, and the authorities that hold the priviledged position of interpreting them.

On another point, one could take the delightful example of unicorns. Carnap and Russel had an amusing debate over the reality of unicorns. I can't recall who took which position, but one argured that unicorns are real and do exist, while the other said the opposite. Unicrons can be said to exist in the mind, you can create a clear image of one, and are so 'real'. But they are not really real and so do not exist. So you might arrive at the interesting position of saying 'unicorns are real, but they do not exist'. To suggest god is or is not a reality is not necessarily positing that it does or does not exist. God can be very real for those who believe, but that does not mean it actually exists.

philologos

DroneWorker wrote: »

Indeed this is true. The problem is you have slightly modified your position from religion to faith. Your previous arguement concerned Christianity, a religion, not faith in the god-concept. There is a distinction I believe. One might happily believe in the god-concept but not necessarily in the religion. I myself, as I have said before, have no use for the god-concept, and I do doubt that such a thing exists, but I will not adamantly proclaim that it cannot exist. I do however believe that religion, though it has many good points, is and was on the whole harmful to humanity. I am highly skeptical of the origins, morals and transmission of religious texts, and the authorities that hold the priviledged position of interpreting them.

We could debate this all night if we wanted. Christianity to this day is bringing far more positivity to the world than negativity in peoples spiritual relations and in the charitable aspect in our communities and in communities further afield.

Both of my arguments concern Christianity, belief in God for the Christian involves the Judeo-Christian God.

As for skepticism of the origins, morals, and tranmission of religious texts. It seems absurd to me. Firstly, the origins are pretty much validated of the Biblical texts. The Tanakh (Old Testament) codified in 450BC by the Jewish rabbis the last of these books were written by 550BC, The New Testament codified in 360AD at the Council of Nicea. All New Testament texts are dated before 100AD, and all New Testament texts were cited by Church Fathers between the 1st and 2nd centuries.

DroneWorker wrote: »

On another point, one could take the delightful example of unicorns. Carnap and Russel had an amusing debate over the reality of unicorns. I can't recall who took which position, but one argured that unicorns are real and do exist, while the other said the opposite. Unicrons can be said to exist in the mind, you can create a clear image of one, and are so 'real'. But they are not really real and so do not exist. So you might arrive at the interesting position of saying 'unicorns are real, but they do not exist'. To suggest god is or is not a reality is not necessarily positing that it does or does not exist. God can be very real for those who believe, but that does not mean it actually exists.

Or we could not get sidetracked with unicorns, because the existence of God is a question that has an abundance of cultural reference, and that has an abundance of relevance to the world if indeed true.

The arguments for God's existence are many ranging from cosmology, to the origin of morality, to design. The arguments for Biblical authenticity lie in the dating of texts, the archaeological backup for events in the Biblical text, historical books that also verify claims in the Bible. If you want to look to these for yourself, it may be best if you investigate into Christian apologetics.

I can't imagine that we will be agreeing any time soon, but I just wanted to leave my suggestion on this thread for the name.

DroneWorker

Jakkass wrote: »

We could debate this all night if we wanted.

Indeed! That is what I am enjoying!

Jakkass wrote: »

Christianity to this day is bringing far more positivity to the world than negativity in peoples spiritual relations and in the charitable aspect in our communities and in communities further afield.

Except in deeply Christian countries which ban prophylactics leading to a rise in sexually transmitted disease, the reduction of women to a second-class status etc etc. These issues may no longer have such a great impact here in the west but in the 3rd world they are still very much an issue. Womens's rights are a triumph of secularism and democracy. As for charity, that exists in other cultures and is not the sole province of Christianity. I understand it is a crucial element of Buddhism and Islam. I cannot speak for other religions as I have not investigated them on this issue.

Jakkass wrote: »

Both of my arguments concern Christianity, belief in God for the Christian involves the Judeo-Christian God.

Fair enough.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for skepticism of the origins, morals, and tranmission of religious texts. It seems absurd to me. Firstly, the origins are pretty much validated of the Biblical texts. The Tanakh (Old Testament) codified in 450BC by the Jewish rabbis the last of these books were written by 550BC, The New Testament codified in 360AD at the Council of Nicea. All New Testament texts are dated before 100AD, and all New Testament texts were cited by Church Fathers between the 1st and 2nd centuries.

...The arguments for God's existence are many ranging from cosmology, to the origin of morality, to design. The arguments for Biblical authenticity lie in the dating of texts, the archaeological backup for events in the Biblical text, historical books that also verify claims in the Bible. If you want to look to these for yourself, it may be best if you investigate into Christian apologetics.

That religious texts were codified by peolpe who believed in them and are supported by other religious texts is not a validation of authenticity. I imagine you do not mean the Bible validates itself (your statement "the origins are pretty much validated of the Biblical texts" is oddly constructed) but rather that scholars have independantly validate the great works of these ancient writers. I would agree with this. The historical content of both testements is not what I doubt, it's all the magic I have issue with. The Bible may be an authentic text, but that does not mean it contains the revelation of God within it. That is simply what people believe, not an inherent quality of the object or words.

Jakkass wrote: »

Or we could not get sidetracked with unicorns, because the existence of God is a question that has an abundance of cultural reference, and that has an abundance of relevance to the world if indeed true.

Quite true. I inserted the unicorn discuss merely as an aside, as an exploration of the often vague language that is used.

Jakkass wrote: »

I can't imagine that we will be agreeing any time soon, but I just wanted to leave my suggestion on this thread for the name.

Yes indeed! Though you must admit we have proved that such a society might actually be home to worthwhile debate! I do like the NUIG Skeptics Society name... I'm not entirely sure that societies can use NUIG in their name anymore either, our new president has interesting notions about logos and letterheads and such... Humanism Soc might be more inclusive. Skepticism is a philosophy of inquiry, while humanism, also a philosophy, is at the same time a political and ethical theory.