Goodbye Atheism

iMyself

For years I have battling with Catholics misunderstanding of what it means to be an Atheist. That it is actually a lack of belief in Gods rather than an alternative belief system. I have increasingly been finding myself having the same argument with Atheists themselves, many of whom in my opinion have a problem letting go of the organisational, congregrational suspect of religion. Then today I read this nonsense in the Irish times:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/features/2012/1026/1224325730359.html?via=mr

The notion that being an atheist means belonging to a system that is striving to be on a par with religious systems only without the God part is utterly preposterous. That when people talk about me being an atheists they can automatically assume my opinion because atheists believe in this that or the other, is completely wrong. That I am a "type" of any kind is the complete opposite of what it actually means to have no faith or to consider yourself just you, yourself not belonging or believing in anything but fact and science.

And now I've had it. I can't even not believe in something without being pigeon holed into a system. The very definition of "atheist" has been completely redefined and transformed. Well you can all have it. FRom now on I will be arguing that I am not an atheist with the same passion and conviction I use when I argue that I am not religious and have no faith whatsoever in a God.

OneIdea

I hear yah... but if you consider or want others to consider you, "Just You" and millions just like you feel the same, then we are back to labeling. "I'm just me" I'm that type.... People need some kind of identity to relate to others, don't you think?

pauldla

Does this mean you have decided that there is a god after all?

Or does it just mean that you're no longer satisfied with the 'atheist' tag, and are no longer going to call yourself an atheist?

Or that you don't like terms such as 'Atheism+', 'New Atheism', etc? If so, I don't blame you.

The notion that being an atheist means belonging to a system that is striving to be on a par with religious systems only without the God part is utterly preposterous.

I'd call that system 'being human', and it is on a par with any religious system. Indeed, I'd say that it is superior, in that it does not rest on veneration of ancient texts, mysticism, Great Watchmaker, etc, and all the accompanying baggage. I suppose that means some would call me a Secular Humanist. No matter, let them call me what I like. I've noticed that some people can't even get my hair-colour right.

robindch

iMyself wrote: »

The very definition of "atheist" has been completely redefined and transformed.

Well, we could certainly run around the usual arguments concerning what atheism is, whether it's strong or weak, whether it's organic or state-sponsored and so on. But they're a different set of arguments which tend to concern people here in A+A more than most.

What's happened over the last year to eighteen months in wider society, though, is that some people are asserting that support for atheism implies support for other viewpoints, some of which are good (Michael Nugent's "ethical atheism", even if it can't help suggesting that plain old atheism is unethical), and some of which are distinctly unhelpful (the unendingly tiresome allegations of misogyny that Ms Watson sees everywhere).

One can certainly continue to argue that atheism is just a lack of belief in gods, but it's hard to do that when many people, especially people who aren't taking part in the online discussions here and elsewhere, think that everybody who self-describes as "atheist" subscribes to a bunch of other views too.

smcgiff

I dunno, for someone that decries being lumped in with others it appears you're not afraid of a misleading/attention grabbing thread title.

iMyself

smcgiff wrote: »

I dunno, for someone that decries being lumped in with others it appears you're not afraid of a misleading/attention grabbing thread title.

And what's the connection you are implying?

Delirium

iMyself wrote: »

For years I have battling with Catholics misunderstanding of what it means to be an Atheist. That it is actually a lack of belief in Gods rather than an alternative belief system. I have increasingly been finding myself having the same argument with Atheists themselves, many of whom in my opinion have a problem letting go of the organisational, congregrational suspect of religion. Then today I read this nonsense in the Irish times:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/features/2012/1026/1224325730359.html?via=mr

The notion that being an atheist means belonging to a system that is striving to be on a par with religious systems only without the God part is utterly preposterous. That when people talk about me being an atheists they can automatically assume my opinion because atheists believe in this that or the other, is completely wrong. That I am a "type" of any kind is the complete opposite of what it actually means to have no faith or to consider yourself just you, yourself not belonging or believing in anything but fact and science.

And now I've had it. I can't even not believe in something without being pigeon holed into a system. The very definition of "atheist" has been completely redefined and transformed. Well you can all have it. FRom now on I will be arguing that I am not an atheist with the same passion and conviction I use when I argue that I am not religious and have no faith whatsoever in a God.

I look forward to your follow up thread, "Goodbye Ireland" :P

There are limitless labels that you could write an equivalent thread for. You would have been more efficient to write a thread titled "stop assuming stuff about me!".

Michael represents the members of Atheist Ireland, not all atheists in Ireland. You say you're not a member, why not just tell people that then? They assume you have a certain opinion about a topic that's incorrect, why not correct them?

People from all walks of life have people assumptions made about them, sometimes incorrectly.

Would it not be in your interest to make it known that there are many varieties of atheist? Your reaction seems OTT for what is essentially a general ignorance as to the definition of atheist.

iMyself

My problem is mostly with Atheism Ireland. I find the notion of a bunch of "atheists" congregating to debate and draw up a set of rules and guidelines for what it means not to believe in God to be total and utter nonsense.

When I say goodbye Atheism in my attention seeking thread title (what thread title is not seeking attention) I mean I can no longer call myself an atheist because in doing so people think I subscribe and agree with everything atheist Ireland has to say. You simply cannot take a proportion of society and claim to speak on their behalf without their consent. That is different to forming an organisation to fight for a common cause.

Atheism Ireland needs to find a new name for what they are because in my opinion what they are doing is far worse than religion. You have to subscribe to a religion whereas atheism Ireland are imposing themselves an a section of society and claim to speak on our behalf without our consent. More seriously it also means I cannot call myself an atheist on the census because now it means more than simply no believing in god. It has become an alternative system, on a par with religion but without the god stuff. Bull****.

iMyself

koth wrote: »

I look forward to your follow up thread, "Goodbye Ireland" :P

There are limitless labels that you could write an equivalent thread for. You would have been more efficient to write a thread titled "stop assuming stuff about me!".

Michael represents the members of Atheist Ireland, not all atheists in Ireland. You say you're not a member, why not just tell people that then? They assume you have a certain opinion about a topic that's incorrect, why not correct them?

People from all walks of life have people assumptions made about them, sometimes incorrectly.

Would it not be in your interest to make it known that there are many varieties of atheist? Your reaction seems OTT for what is essentially a general ignorance as to the definition of atheist.

I don't agree there is a general ignorance as to what it is to be an atheist. Religious people, especially those who enjoy debating with non believers, are well tuned in to what the new definition of being an atheist is. It's not possible to say you are an atheist but do not subscribe to an atheist system because the atheist system is speaking on the behalf of atheists. They are not just speaking on behalf of their members, that's simply not true.

Iwannahurl

I have for many years described myself as a born-again agnostic.

Delirium

iMyself wrote: »

I don't agree there is a general ignorance as to what it is to be an atheist. Religious people, especially those who enjoy debating with non believers, are well tuned in to what the new definition of being an atheist is. It's not possible to say you are an atheist but do not subscribe to an atheist system because the atheist system is speaking on the behalf of atheists. They are not just speaking on behalf of their members, that's simply not true.

You're contradicting yourself. If people know what it means to be called an atheist then they should know that Atheist Ireland doesn't speak for anyone other than the members of AI.

iMyself

koth wrote: »

You're contradicting yourself. If people know what it means to be called an atheist then they should know that Atheist Ireland doesn't speak for anyone other than the members of AI.

I'm saying it has been redefined. What I consider to be an atheist is no longer the final say on it. Its no longer simply a lack of belief, it now comes with all this extra baggage thanks to the clowns in the likes of atheism Ireland. I am now the one who is ignorant to what an atheist is and its impossible to argue against it when there is now a common acceptance that atheism Ireland are the church of atheists.

I now have religious people telling me what my "type" believe in and using it in their arguments.

tdawg

koth wrote: »

You're contradicting yourself. If people know what it means to be called an atheist then they should know that Atheist Ireland doesn't speak for anyone other than the members of AI.

The problem is that people who do not research what Atheist Ireland is will not realise it is just a group of a few hundred people, and bear in mind that most people have no interest in scouting out who exactly Atheist Ireland represents. A more suitable name such as 'Irish Ethical Atheists Society' would be much more clear as to what they really represent.

In fact just days ago I seem to remember reading an article which was talking about Atheist Ireland and was including census figures for how many atheists and non-religious there were in the country and how it is growing.It then goes on to talk about Atheist Ireland and the face of atheism and fails to mention just how insignificant the number of people in this group actually is. Of course I doubt Atheist Ireland would look for the numbers of their own group to be included in this article and even if they did why would a journalist care after all it is the facts they want to put out there that really matter.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/features/2012/1026/1224325730359.html

Of course is really just bad journalism, but it does highlight how misleading the whole thing can be to people.

Daftendirekt

iMyself wrote: »

I'm saying it has been redefined. What I consider to be an atheist is no longer the final say on it. Its no longer simply a lack of belief, it now comes with all this extra baggage thanks to the clowns in the likes of atheism Ireland. I am now the one who is ignorant to what an atheist is and its impossible to argue against it when there is now a common acceptance that atheism Ireland are the church of atheists.

I now have religious people telling me what my "type" believe in and using it in their arguments.

This isn't a new thing, though. People have always made assumptions about atheists (as well as many other groups). Doesn't mean they're right, and it doesn't mean the definition of the word has been changed.

How can you stop being an atheist without starting to believe in a god?

Michael Nugent

iMyself wrote: »

I'm saying it has been redefined. What I consider to be an atheist is no longer the final say on it.

You seem surprised and upset that the world does not revolve around your wishes. This is something that we all have to live with.

What you, or I, or anybody else considers to be an atheist has never been the final say on it, and never will be.

Words are tools of communication, and their meanings change over time. Every so often, dictionaries retrospectively attempt to record the evolving meanings that people have come to associate with those words. 

When the word atheism was first coined, it meant rejection of the established gods, not of theistic claims, because the existence of gods was considered a fact not a belief. So the definition you use is an already-changed definition.

You are being dogmatic in an area where dogma won’t work.

iMyself wrote: »

Its no longer simply a lack of belief, it now comes with all this extra baggage thanks to the clowns in the likes of atheism Ireland.

I know we’ve been through this discussion here before, when Atheist Ireland was first founded, but I assume we will have to go through it again periodically as we increase our profile.

Atheist Ireland is an advocacy group. We promote atheism and reason over supernaturalism and superstition, and we promote an ethical secular society.

There is nothing unusual in advocacy groups having the name Atheist in their title. It has been happening for decades around the world. Ireland is now catching up.

Like all advocacy groups, we speak for our members. If you’re not a member, we don’t claim to speak for you.

We are not clowns, and calling us clowns does not help your argument.

Most people understand the difference between the name of an organisation or service or product, and other uses of the words that are included in that name.

Boards.ie does not represent all internet discussion board in Ireland.
The Irish Countrywomen’s Association does not represent all Irish countrywomen.
The Humanist Association of Ireland does not respresent all humanists in Ireland.
The Green party of Ireland does not represent all environmentalists in ireland.
Internet Explorer does not represent all explorers of the Internet.
Manchester is not United.

iMyself wrote: »

I am now the one who is ignorant to what an atheist is and its impossible to argue against it when there is now a common acceptance that atheism Ireland are the church of atheists.

Let's keep things in perspective here. There is no common acceptance about what Atheist Ireland is. Most people in Ireland don't even know that Atheist Ireland exists.

You are so engaged about us that you have signed up here under the name iMyself solely to complain about us, and you don't even know what our name is.

We're working to change that, but it will take time.

iMyself wrote: »

I now have religious people telling me what my "type" believe in and using it in their arguments.

Well, just tell them that we are not your "type". Or that you are not our "type". Or whatever it is that they are arguing.

Those types of argument will always be around, regardless of what organisations exist or what they are named.

They are healthy arguments, because they make people think.

iMyself

Michael Nugent wrote: »

You seem surprised and upset that the world does not revolve around your wishes. This is something that we all have to live with.

What you, or I, or anybody else considers to be an atheist has never been the final say on it, and never will be.

Words are tools of communication, and their meanings change over time. Every so often, dictionaries retrospectively attempt to record the evolving meanings that people have come to associate with those words.

When the word atheism was first coined, it meant rejection of the established gods, not of theistic claims, because the existence of gods was considered a fact not a belief. So the definition you use is an already-changed definition.

You are being dogmatic in an area where dogma won’t work.


I know we’ve been through this discussion here before, when Atheist Ireland was first founded, but I assume we will have to go through it again periodically as we increase our profile.

Atheist Ireland is an advocacy group. We promote atheism and reason over supernaturalism and superstition, and we promote an ethical secular society.

There is nothing unusual in advocacy groups having the name Atheist in their title. It has been happening for decades around the world. Ireland is now catching up.

Like all advocacy groups, we speak for our members. If you’re not a member, we don’t claim to speak for you.

We are not clowns, and calling us clowns does not help your argument.

Most people understand the difference between the name of an organisation or service or product, and other uses of the words that are included in that name.

Boards.ie does not represent all internet discussion board in Ireland.
The Irish Countrywomen’s Association does not represent all Irish countrywomen.
The Humanist Association of Ireland does not respresent all humanists in Ireland.
The Green party of Ireland does not represent all environmentalists in ireland.
Internet Explorer does not represent all explorers of the Internet.
Manchester is not United.


Let's keep things in perspective here. There is no common acceptance about what Atheist Ireland is. Most people in Ireland don't even know that Atheist Ireland exists.

You are so engaged about us that you have signed up here under the name iMyself solely to complain about us, and you don't even know what our name is.

We're working to change that, but it will take time.


Well, just tell them that we are not your "type". Or that you are not our "type". Or whatever it is that they are arguing.

Those types of argument will always be around, regardless of what organisations exist or what they are named.

They are healthy arguments, because they make people think.

If you do not represent atheists in Ireland then it might be a good idea to change your name. It might also be a good idea to stop spreading the word of atheism as if you are some sort of atheist cardinal. I may not know everything about your organisation because quite frankly I have no interest whatsoever in your organisation, but I have heard enough interviews on the radio and TV and read enough quotes in the media including the above article which has me so incensed that I felt the need to speak about it on an internet forum, to know that you are in fact claiming to represent atheists and not just your members.

robindch

iMyself wrote: »

[...] it now comes with all this extra baggage thanks to the clowns in the likes of atheism Ireland.[...]

There's no call for that kind of language so cut it out, please.

iMyself

Daftendirekt wrote: »

This isn't a new thing, though. People have always made assumptions about atheists (as well as many other groups). Doesn't mean they're right, and it doesn't mean the definition of the word has been changed.

How can you stop being an atheist without starting to believe in a god?

The difference here is that it is atheists, or organisations associating themselves with atheism, who are redefining what it means.

iMyself

robindch wrote: »

There's no call for that kind of language so cut it out, please.

Duly noted. My apologies.

gbee

So with Atheism being religiousized and religion believing in a god, I can see where this can get very messy.

So what's an absolute non believer to call oneself to maintain the free spirit and freshness that atheism promised?

fitz0

gbee wrote: »

So with Atheism being religiousized and religion believing in a god, I can see where this can get very messy.

So what's an absolute non believer to call oneself to maintain the free spirit and freshness that atheism promised?

How is it being 'religiousized'? There are advocacy groups for thousands of causes, are these all religiousized too? Are Barnardos religiousizing children's charities?

Here's a list of secular organizations throughout the world. Are all of these (or at least the ones with atheist in the title) competing religions now?

Michael Nugent

iMyself wrote: »

The difference here is that it is atheists, or organisations associating themselves with atheism, who are redefining what it means.

But that is how the definition that you use came about.

Some atheists managed to change the meaning that was previously associated to the word (rejection of the established gods) to a new set of meanings (either believing that there is no god, or not believing that there is a god).

I understand that you are upset about it, because it clearly means a lot to you.

But you can't stop the evolution of language. You are applying dogma where dogma won't work.

pauldla

gbee wrote: »

So with Atheism being religiousized and religion believing in a god, I can see where this can get very messy.

So what's an absolute non believer to call oneself to maintain the free spirit and freshness that atheism promised?

'Big A' atheists and 'Small A' atheists?

Or Bigendians and Littleendians?

iMyself

Michael Nugent wrote: »

But that is how the definition that you use came about.

Some atheists managed to change the meaning that was previously associated to the word (rejection of the established gods) to a new set of meanings (either believing that there is no god, or not believing that there is a god).

I understand that you are upset about it, because it clearly means a lot to you.

But you can't stop the evolution of language. You are applying dogma where dogma won't work.

I'm not here to play with words. I do feel very strongly about it and I just wish people would live freely in society without having to conform to a set of beliefs or rules.

By all means set up charities and help people without using religion. I just wish you would drop the atheism tag and fight your cause without trying to establish a non religious religion (for want of a better phrase but I think it best describes it). And more importantly I wish you would stop trying to drag me into it.

Daftendirekt

iMyself wrote: »

The difference here is that it is atheists, or organisations associating themselves with atheism, who are redefining what it means.

I don't agree that this is what atheist advocacy organisations do, but it if it was would it necessarily be a bad thing? There was a time when the word 'atheist' was synonymous with 'immoral', is it a bad thing that that's changed?

Aside from that, the prevailing atheist stereotype at the moment is the angry nerd who spends his time spouting hostility towards believers. I know it's bullshit and I'm sure most people here do too, but it's out all the same. If AI or other organisations want to replace that with the image of scientifically-minded, charitable, ethical thinkers is that such a bad thing? Since many people still like to ask "But if there's no God, why do you get out of bed in the morning?" I think that's a worthwhile effort.

(And in case it's relevant, I'm not a member of any atheist organisation.)

Michael Nugent

iMyself wrote: »

I'm not here to play with words. I do feel very strongly about it and I just wish people would live freely in society without having to conform to a set of beliefs or rules.

By all means set up charities and help people without using religion. I just wish you would drop the atheism tag and fight your cause without trying to establish a non religious religion (for want of a better phrase but I think it best describes it). And more importantly I wish you would stop trying to drag me into it.

I know you are not playing with words, but your argument is based on our use of a word, so I can only answer by reference to the evolving meanings of that word.

Like you, I also want people to be able to live freely in society without having to conform to a set of beliefs, or to a set of rules other than law based on democracy and human rights etc. I am actively working to try to bring about that type of society.

We're not going to change our name, so without sounding harsh you'll have to find some way of dealing with that. The "living freely in society" argument works both ways. You are free to object to our name, and we are free to use it.

And we're not dragging you into anything. I'm just answering questions that you asked. I can stop answering your questions if you prefer.

Dades

iMyself, I do see your point. It doesn't help that an organisation called Atheist Ireland is getting a profile for promoting policies you or I may not agree with.

But atheists has always been associated with agendas which are nothing to do atheism, it goes with the territory. Long before AI came along you were apt to be considered a baby-eater or a nihilist or whatever preconception was in someone's head.

iMyself

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I know you are not playing with words, but your argument is based on our use of a word, so I can only answer by reference to the evolving meanings of that word.

Like you, I also want people to be able to live freely in society without having to conform to a set of beliefs, or to a set of rules other than law based on democracy and human rights etc. I am actively working to try to bring about that type of society.

We're not going to change our name, so without sounding harsh you'll have to find some way of dealing with that. The "living freely in society" argument works both ways. You are free to object to our name, and we are free to use it.

And we're not dragging you into anything. I'm just answering questions that you asked. I can stop answering your questions if you prefer.

You're dragging me into it by claiming to represent atheists. I dont see how you can claim to be working on bringing about a free society, because what you are actually doing is setting up an alternative system similar to a religion but which is founded on the basis of a disbelief in God. This is not a free society. A free society is one in which non democratic religions or non religious organisations such as Atheist Ireland have no political or economic influence.

You are setting up another tick box on the list where in a free society there is no list never mind tick boxes.

pauldla

iMyself wrote: »

You're dragging me into it by claiming to represent atheists. I dont see how you can claim to be working on bringing about a free society, because what you are actually doing is setting up an alternative system similar to a religion but which is founded on the basis of a disbelief in God. This is not a free society. A free society is one in which non democratic religions or non religious organisations such as Atheist Ireland have no political or economic influence.

You are setting up another tick box on the list where in a free society there is no list never mind tick boxes.

Until all atheists in Ireland are required to join or support AI, I’m not sure you’re right. And are you not describing some kind of anarchist utopia? In a free society, people automatically form groups based around common interests and needs, surely?

endacl

On here, due to the nature if the discussions, I suppose, like other posters, I've come to be identified by some (generally visitors from the 'other' camp) as militant or dogmatic, whatever that might mean. I strive of course, to be the best kind of online atheist. A humorous one. To approach the line of patronizing, but (almost) never cross it. My atheism doesn't need policy documents. Neither does my non-status as a jedi, for example.

To be honest though, in offline life, you'd never know it. Now that I think of it, in RL I'd probably have to describe meself as atheist, but non-practising. I don't belong to a church. They have no relevance to me. Likewise AI. A club about what there isn't just seems a bit odd. There is no god. That's where atheism begins and ends for me. I enjoy the banter, but I don't invest a lot of time in thinking about 'what isn't', outside of these chats. I've other stuff to be getting on with. Stuff that does exist.

MisterEpicurus

endacl wrote: »

To be honest though, in offline life, you'd never know it. Now that I think of it, in RL I'd probably have to describe meself as atheist, but non-practising. I don't belong to a church. They have no relevance to me. Likewise AI. A club about what there isn't just seems a bit odd. There is no god. That's where atheism begins and ends for me. I enjoy the banter, but I don't invest a lot of time in thinking about 'what isn't', outside of these chats. I've other stuff to be getting on with. Stuff that does exist.

I can sympathize with the OP about the name but I think he's attacking it the wrong way. I think the confusion lies in the unnecessary addition of the word 'Atheist' into the campaign.

As I've said in my other posts - all the aims of Atheist Ireland can be achieved through Secularism i.e. Contraception, Abortion, Schools, Promoting Reason & Science etc. Many religious folks are also secular too. Given that atheism is merely a disbelief in god, then there is no need to have an actual 'society' based around it - moreover being an atheist says nothing about your politics. The core political issues that AI aims to support can be achieved through secularism and if an atheist wishes to subscribe, then they can. By shovelling it under the umbrella term of 'Atheism' it creates all this unnecessary confusion that all atheists subscribe to your doctrines but more importantly it doesn't make sense given Secularism exists.

You might ask "But doesn't Secularism Ireland represent all secularists?", well probably yes. But that's because it's a political stance and a very direct and obvious one too. It would be very strange indeed if a secularists didn't appeal or agree with a secular policy. However, the term 'Atheist Ireland' says nothing about politics whatsoever and so it creates this fuzzy and silly confusion.

So my challenge to Michael Nugent would be to answer the question - What advantage does coining 'Atheist Ireland' have over the modest name of 'Secularism Ireland' or its equivalent in terms of your policy? And given that all policies can be achieved under secularism, is it not more inclusive to band under secularism than atheism?