Rationalist Society

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.

DroneWorker

Jakkass wrote: »

Edit: Just to note this <Quote> "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.

Again, "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

It doesn't regect god, it rejects the importance of god. Secular Humanism allows for belief in god, it just doesn't think that it is relevant. If a person does or doesn't want to believe in god that is their prerogative, in secular humanism. Clearly religion demands belief in god.

Dubhghaillix

Wow, I'm glad to see there's interest in this Society. We're talking about looking for signatures to sponsor us starting on Societies Day. We're still discussing the name, trying to find the best one. Sceptic Society is good (But I can easily foresee a situation where the acronym might be used against us) This is a society for Doubters, Sceptics, People who ask questions, for the Non-Believers, but not just non-believers in Religion, for people who don't believe in astrology, pseudo-sciences, "new-age" healing nonsense, or anything supernatural. If anyone has any savage ideas for names, sure post them up. I'm liking the Allied Atheist Alliance.

DroneWorker

How about "The Teapot Revivalist Society", in honour of Russell's amusing parody of faith...? The acronym issue occured to me also, but using 'humanism' averts this and opens the group to a wider range of issues. The AAA might not be taken seriously as it is governed by sea-otters... How about 'Faith No More'?

DroneWorker

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

This is a society for Doubters, Sceptics, People who ask questions, for the Non-Believers, but not just non-believers in Religion, for people who don't believe in astrology, pseudo-sciences, "new-age" healing nonsense, or anything supernatural.

I harbour a sincere disgust of the perversion of science which has created nonsense like homeopathy and Depak Chopra, and this bizzare belief in crystals, astrology and healing angels. The belief in astrology in particular amuses me as it is often held by professed Catholics who seem to ignore the fact that this is heresy...

Casper89

DroneWorker wrote: »

The AAA might not be taken seriously as it is governed by sea-otters...

But their argument about people chopping down trees for tables when we have perfectly good tummies to eat on was entirely rational...:(

DroneWorker

Casper89 wrote: »

But their argument about people chopping down trees for tables when we have perfectly good tummies to eat on was entirely rational...:(

Yeah, but they don't cook their food... I for one have no desire to place a hot plate on my belly. We would eventually evolve thicker skin, but for us, the first generation of belly-eaters, it would be uncomfortable... Maybe we could lash otters together in a table-like configuration and eat of their belllies... Good for the environment, bad for IKEA...

DroneWorker

The society could be named ater a famous atheist, for example, The Epicurian Society. Then people will come along looking for good food and be totally shocked...

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
-Epicurus

kevinmcinerney

Jakkass wrote: »

The most accurate and the most inclusive seems to be "Skeptics".

I like your thinking jakkass.;) I have been saying from the very begining that "scepticism" is what the society is really about. Afterall, religion is only one, albeit the most pernicious, form of irrational nonsence. I hate alternative medicine and astrology etc.. almost as much. Also i think "athiest" is too strong or loaded a term to use these days..I prefer the word secular..

The Secular Soc for Science reason & Sceptisism. (Im happy with this)...

p.s. is everyone on here from N.U.I.G.

Maybe this society will have more members than i originally envisaged....

Casper89

DroneWorker wrote: »

Yeah, but they don't cook their food... I for one have no desire to place a hot plate on my belly. We would eventually evolve thicker skin, but for us, the first generation of belly-eaters, it would be uncomfortable... Maybe we could lash otters together in a table-like configuration and eat of their belllies... Good for the environment, bad for IKEA...

hmm, I forgot about hot food...maybe atheist humans and atheist sea otters can never get along after all...*sigh*

kevinmcinerney

DroneWorker wrote: »

The society could be named ater a famous atheist, for example, The Epicurian Society. Then people will come along looking for good food and be totally shocked...

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
-Epicurus

Hmm..thats nice..well done...I like names that have old world charm....Problem is, like calling it the "naturalism" or "rationalist" society you dont want to associate to much with a philosophical movement because they all have there token "nonsense" part.

also "Epicurus' view was that there were gods, but that they were neither willing nor able to prevent evil". He was a theist!