Goodbye Atheism

endacl

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

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 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. The core political issues that AI aims to support can be achieved through secularism. By shovelling it under the umbrella term of 'Atheism' it creates all this unnecessary 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?

Put much better. Thanks MrE. Secularism I can get right behind.

The 'British humanist society', for example, even sounds more self-assured and confident than the 'British atheist society' ever would. Why not 'secular Ireland', or 'humanist Ireland'? I might even join one of those.

Michael Nugent

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

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?

MisterEpicurus, that is a reasonable question. The answer is partly that the group evolved from the online discussion board atheist.ie, and mostly because our aims are not limited to secularism.

Our aims are
1. To promote atheism and reason over superstition and supernaturalism.
2. To promote an ethical and secular Ireland where the state does not support or fund or give special treatment to any religion.

We had a lengthy discussion on all of this before deciding on our name, with three different polls as we narrowed down the options. We teased out all of the pros and cons of different options, and this is the name we decided on.

I'm personally happy to discuss the merits of the name here and elsewhere, and to devote as much time as I can to doing so, but as an organisation we have moved well beyond that discussion and we focus all of our time and energy to working hard to try to achieve our aims.

In real life, as opposed to some internet discussions, when we are debating the merits of religion or atheism with theists, or working with other NGOs or lobbying politicians, or making submissions to international regulatory bodies on human rights, these discussions do not arise.

Michael Nugent

endacl wrote: »

Why not 'secular Ireland', or 'humanist Ireland'? I might even join one of those.

You may well be more comfortable joining the Humanist Association of Ireland.

I am also a member of the HAI, and there is a great degree of overlap of membership between the HAI and Atheist Ireland.

MisterEpicurus

In real life, as opposed to some internet discussions, when we are debating the merits of religion or atheism with theists, or working with other NGOs or lobbying politicians, or making submissions to international regulatory bodies on human rights, these discussions do not arise.

I think it's a given that the name doesn't prop up during work with other bodies but that's not relevant nor undermines the significance and validity of the question.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Our aims are
1. To promote atheism and reason over superstition and supernaturalism.
2. To promote an ethical and secular Ireland where the state does not support or fund or give special treatment to any religion.

First of all, you shouldn't promote 'Atheism' as this almost sounds dogmatic which is why many people aren't joining your organization as there could be.

Promoting science and reason - great.

Promoting an Ethical Ireland? Not sure why anyone would choose to follow you or your small band of people concerning ethics. It would be sufficient to highlight the ills that highly conservative religious folks have on our society but again this could be done under the banner of secularism. So despite the ethical considerations which should really be linked to secularism and limited to it, the 2nd aim is more or less a strive for secularism.

So if you just drop the dogmatic 'Promoting Atheism' and instead focus your energies on promoting science and reason then surely more people would become atheist anyway? By phrasing it in such direct terms, it's quite off-putting and leading to the backlash you get on the net.

Plus, your answer is not a sufficient one for the question I posed. The only 'advantage' you posited was that you 'Promote Atheism' which has lead to a backlash.

EDIT: Here is a post of the work that Atheist Ireland do;
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81354856&postcount=1

I'd say about 90%+ of this work is directly related to Aim 2, that of Secularism.
The ethical policy section I just don't really get - but that and other administrative efforts etc. would occupy the other 10%.

So we have overwhelming evidence on why the society is more a secular one than an atheist one and reinforces our point that the word 'Atheist' is needlessly added.

Michael Nugent

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

First of all, you shouldn't promote 'Atheism' as this almost sounds dogmatic which is why many people aren't joining your organization as there could be.

Well, you could say that about any organization: that they would get more members if they had different aims. But these are the aims that we were established to promote (the combination of atheism, reason and ethical secularism). We're not a populist group. We'd rather have a smaller growing number of people helping us to promote our aims, than have a larger number of people helping us to promote a different set of aims.

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

By phrasing it in such direct terms, it's quite off-putting and leading to the backlash you get on the net.

I don't consider these discussions to be 'a backlash on the net'. The reaction to our internet presence has been mostly very positive. Contrast approximately 4,000 likes and continuous positive discussions on our Facebook Page, approximately 1,500 members of our Facebook Group and similar positive reaction, to the occasional criticism of our name on this discussion board.

And, if we wanted to, we could avoid even these discussions by simply not taking part in them. Replying to criticism on the Internet keeps the discussion alive. I'm happy to do that, because I think criticism and discussion is healthy. But I don't misinterpret it as 'a backlash on the net'. I'm quite happy with the reaction we get on the Internet.

iMyself

Michael Nugent wrote: »

MisterEpicurus, that is a reasonable question. The answer is partly that the group evolved from the online discussion board atheist.ie, and mostly because our aims are not limited to secularism.

Our aims are
1. To promote atheism and reason over superstition and supernaturalism.
2. To promote an ethical and secular Ireland where the state does not support or fund or give special treatment to any religion.

We had a lengthy discussion on all of this before deciding on our name, with three different polls as we narrowed down the options. We teased out all of the pros and cons of different options, and this is the name we decided on.

I'm personally happy to discuss the merits of the name here and elsewhere, and to devote as much time as I can to doing so, but as an organisation we have moved well beyond that discussion and we focus all of our time and energy to working hard to try to achieve our aims.

In real life, as opposed to some internet discussions, when we are debating the merits of religion or atheism with theists, or working with other NGOs or lobbying politicians, or making submissions to international regulatory bodies on human rights, these discussions do not arise.

I never got my ballot paper when you were voting to represent me.

It's not just about the name. It's about your organisations claim that you represent 220 thousand people in Ireland when you dont. I'm open to correction but I think the reality is you represent a couple of hundred people. And quite frankly the fact that you have more important things to do is none of my concern. You do not represent me and I owe you no thanks. I've been called an ungrateful bad catholic all my life, go ahead and add ungrateful bad atheist to that.

Mickeroo

iMyself wrote: »

I never got my ballot paper when you were voting to represent me.

It's not just about the name. It's about your organisations claim that you represent 220 thousand people in Ireland when you dont. I'm open to correction but I think the reality is you represent a couple of hundred people. And quite frankly the fact that you have more important things to do is none of my concern. You do not represent me and I owe you no thanks. I've been called an ungrateful bad catholic all my life, go ahead and add ungrateful bad atheist to that.

I don't think they claim to represent anyone who isn't an affiliated member?

Michael Nugent

iMyself wrote: »

I never got my ballot paper when you were voting to represent me.

It's not just about the name. It's about your organisations claim that you represent 220 thousand people in Ireland when you dont. I'm open to correction but I think the reality is you represent a couple of hundred people. And quite frankly the fact that you have more important things to do is none of my concern. You do not represent me and I owe you no thanks. I've been called an ungrateful bad catholic all my life, go ahead and add ungrateful bad atheist to that.

You don’t seem to understand the concept of how voluntary associations exist within society, or who they are or are not accountable to, or how the names of advocacy groups can relate to their membership and/or their areas of interest and aims and activities.

You are also rejecting assertions that not only have we not made, but that I have clarified that we are not making. We didn’t vote to represent you. We don’t claim to represent 220,000 people. We’re not asking you for thanks. We’re not calling you an ungrateful bad atheist.

I’m not even calling you an atheist, because you have said that from now on you will be arguing that you are not an atheist.

Yet you assume that your preferred meaning of the word atheism is the only correct one, and that everyone else is wrong (as distinct from having a different opinion than you), and that nobody else should use the word atheist in ways that differ from your preferred meaning, in order to facilitate your personal debating tactics with religious people.

That is an unreasonable expectation. The world is more nuanced and flexible than that. Most of us are trying to do some good, and sometimes we will step on each other’s toes. Let’s just continue to try to do the best we can, and accept that the word means different things to different people.

frozenfrozen

I have to clarify this a lot when talking to people about my lack of faith.

I'm not an atheist. I am atheist.

endacl

frozenfrozen wrote: »

I have to clarify this a lot when talking to people about my lack of faith.

I'm not an atheist. I am atheist.

Says a lot with a little. I'm nicking that.

iMyself

Michael Nugent wrote: »

You don’t seem to understand the concept of how voluntary associations exist within society, or who they are or are not accountable to, or how the names of advocacy groups can relate to their membership and/or their areas of interest and aims and activities.

You are also rejecting assertions that not only have we not made, but that I have clarified that we are not making. We didn’t vote to represent you. We don’t claim to represent 220,000 people. We’re not asking you for thanks. We’re not calling you an ungrateful bad atheist.

I’m not even calling you an atheist, because you have said that from now on you will be arguing that you are not an atheist.

Yet you assume that your preferred meaning of the word atheism is the only correct one, and that everyone else is wrong (as distinct from having a different opinion than you), and that nobody else should use the word atheist in ways that differ from your preferred meaning, in order to facilitate your personal debating tactics with religious people.

That is an unreasonable expectation. The world is more nuanced and flexible than that. Most of us are trying to do some good, and sometimes we will step on each other’s toes. Let’s just continue to try to do the best we can, and accept that the word means different things to different people.

Ok I'm only going to say this one last time, if you don't get it then so be it. The definition of atheist is a lack of belief in Gods. Quite literally "Ante Theist" There are more eloquent ways to phrase it I'm sure, but that is what it means. You keep insisting that it is open to interpretation and the term is evolving. It cannot evolve, you believe in God or you don't. You cannot come along and claim to represent a section of society without their consent and then continue to build a belief system modelled largely on religion, without the God, the very thing that an atheist spends his entire life trying to distance himself from. Your organisation is not simply a voluntary body with aims whose name just happens to suggest you represent atheists. You are quite vocally claiming to represent atheists and in fact were you not then you would be nothing. Who cares about a club with a couple of hundred people? No, very clearly it is your aim to use atheism to drive your cause and to establish a leadership over a new section of society and establish a political clout.

It's fine, I'll find another way of describing my lack of belief in God, as I stated in my original post you can have the term. It's now just another bull**** belief system that I'm once again excluded from because I refuse to conform to unnecessary, undemocratic rules, beliefs and codes of conduct.

Thanks for your time and I do appreciate that you take the time to debate issues even if they seem petty and a waste of your time. It's a pity I have failed to get my point across to you. It would be nice to have someone who truly represents a free and equal society, its just such a pity the route you are taking is this watered down religion without a God nonsense.

darealtulip

I really don't see the problem, I have NEVER heard AI say they represent all atheists in Ireland.

If you don't agree with the name then that is though. I can't stand many names of various organisations but I never demand they change it or claim that they use the name wrong or understand the meaning of a word different from what I use think it means.

I am really sorry but if you don't like what AI stands for then there is a very simple solution; don't become a member.

If you don't want to call yourself an atheist then that is fine too, you have many other choices if you really feel the need to put yourself in a certain box.

iMyself

darealtulip wrote: »

I really don't see the problem, I have NEVER heard AI say they represent all atheists in Ireland.

If you don't agree with the name then that is though. I can't stand many names of various organisations but I never demand they change it or claim that they use the name wrong or understand the meaning of a word different from what I use think it means.

I am really sorry but if you don't like what AI stands for then there is a very simple solution; don't become a member.

If you don't want to call yourself an atheist then that is fine too, you have many other choices if you really feel the need to put yourself in a certain box.

I'm also free to say black means white but the simple fact is it doesn't. Although living in Ireland I'm sure I'll find a couple of hundred people who agree with me. We can set up a voluntary organisation, throw in a few different shades and make a statement that from now on black is more kind of a bluish grey and everyone who uses black is actually talking about our version of the colour.

Nodin

iMyself wrote: »

I'm also free to say black means white but the simple fact is it doesn't. Although living in Ireland I'm sure I'll find a couple of hundred people who agree with me. We can set up a voluntary organisation, throw in a few different shades and make a statement that from now on black is more kind of a bluish grey and everyone who uses black is actually talking about our version of the colour.

Do you attack organisations for disabilities along similar lines?

darealtulip

iMyself wrote: »

I'm also free to say black means white but the simple fact is it doesn't. Although living in Ireland I'm sure I'll find a couple of hundred people who agree with me. We can set up a voluntary organisation, throw in a few different shades and make a statement that from now on black is more kind of a bluish grey and everyone who uses black is actually talking about our version of the colour.

That is absolutely your right to do so. That is why I still don't see the problem, unless you don't agree with people forming an organisation that is.

I would not have a problem when you would do that, in fact I would defend your right to do so, however pointless I would find it.

iMyself

darealtulip wrote: »

That is absolutely your right to do so. That is why I still don't see the problem, unless you don't agree with people forming an organisation that is.

I would not have a problem when you would do that, in fact I would defend your right to do so, however pointless I would find it.

Right so I'm entitled to speak my opinion and stand up against an organization which has hijacked that which I have spent my entire life fighting for.

I also agree with you that they are entitled to exist, but dont dare tell me I cannot speak up against it.

iMyself

Nodin wrote: »

Do you attack organisations for disabilities along similar lines?

Yeah :rolleyes:

coffee_cake

...a system that I'm once again excluded from because I refuse to conform

Yeah, don't conform, fight the system man!!

Mickeroo

iMyself wrote: »

Right so I'm entitled to speak my opinion and stand up against an organization which has hijacked that which I have spent my entire life fighting for.

I also agree with you that they are entitled to exist, but dont dare tell me I cannot speak up against it.

Nobody said you can't but a few did disagree with some of your points. You seemed more interested in ranting about Atheist ireland than actually engaging in a discussion with those posters though IMO.

Dades

The HAI has been mentioned on this thread in comparison. They represent humanists, obviously. All humanists? Well yes, actually. Because the HAI promote the stated tenets of humanism. If your don't subscribe to those then basically you're not a humanist.

Therein lies the difference between the HAI and Atheist Ireland. The problem is people - who historically have been lazy in their understanding of atheism - are going to make assumptions that AI represent atheists like the HAI represent humanists. That's nobody's fault, but it is an undeniable result of the naming.

But again, I think the only people who understand that atheism historically have been atheists.

darealtulip

iMyself wrote: »

Right so I'm entitled to speak my opinion and stand up against an organization which has hijacked that which I have spent my entire life fighting for.

I also agree with you that they are entitled to exist, but dont dare tell me I cannot speak up against it.

I did the opposite, I stated that you have the full right to do so.

But it seems to me you are attacking the right from other people to organise them self and start an advocacy group based on "I have spent my entire life fighting for"

So because you fought your entire life, other people do not have the right?

As I said before I still don't see your problem; Ignore AI and do what you always did.

As you say it is only a small group (does size matter though?) so they are easily ignored.

nagirrac

This thread is better than the "Judean People's Front" scene in the Life of Brian

Dades

I see what you've done there...

No. Contribute, or don't post.

MisterEpicurus

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Well, you could say that about any organization: that they would get more members if they had different aims. But these are the aims that we were established to promote (the combination of atheism, reason and ethical secularism). We're not a populist group. We'd rather have a smaller growing number of people helping us to promote our aims, than have a larger number of people helping us to promote a different set of aims.

I don't consider these discussions to be 'a backlash on the net'. The reaction to our internet presence has been mostly very positive. Contrast approximately 4,000 likes and continuous positive discussions on our Facebook Page, approximately 1,500 members of our Facebook Group and similar positive reaction, to the occasional criticism of our name on this discussion board.

And, if we wanted to, we could avoid even these discussions by simply not taking part in them. Replying to criticism on the Internet keeps the discussion alive. I'm happy to do that, because I think criticism and discussion is healthy. But I don't misinterpret it as 'a backlash on the net'. I'm quite happy with the reaction we get on the Internet.

I think it's disappointing that the thread has again been derailed by the bad argument of the thread i.e that AI represents all atheists of Ireland dot dot dot etc.

The main argument should be the one I espoused and the argument that has thus far gone unanswered.

The answers you provided Mr. Nugent were for 2 short quotations which aren't even the main point.

My main point has yet again gone unanswered which is what advantage does calling the society 'Atheist Ireland' have when all the principled objectives can be achieved through secularism. There is simply no advantage. The argument should be framed that it doesn't make sense to call it 'Atheist Ireland' in the first place regardless of how many people voted for it.

coolhull

I don't really see your problem. You believe in God, you don't believe in God. Either way, it's your choice. Maybe you should chillax

Michael Nugent

Dades wrote: »

The HAI has been mentioned on this thread in comparison. They represent humanists, obviously. All humanists? Well yes, actually. Because the HAI promote the stated tenets of humanism. If your don't subscribe to those then basically you're not a humanist.

Therein lies the difference between the HAI and Atheist Ireland. The problem is people - who historically have been lazy in their understanding of atheism - are going to make assumptions that AI represent atheists like the HAI represent humanists. That's nobody's fault, but it is an undeniable result of the naming.

Dades, I say this as a member and active supporter of the Humanist Association of Ireland.

There is no single set of stated tenets of humanism. There are many types of humanism, including variations of religious humanism and nonreligious or secular humanism.

There are also humanist manifestos and humanist organizations, that have been written or founded by some people and that are supported by others.

The Humanist Association of Ireland is one of those organizations. I am a member of it and I actively support it.

The Humanist Association of Ireland does not represent all humanists in Ireland. It represents the members of the Humanist Association of Ireland.

If you apply the same (lack of) logic used in this thread to attack Atheist Ireland, you would also have to argue that the Humanist Association of Ireland is misrepresenting...

• religious humanists who want people to understand that you can be both religious and humanist.
• secular humanists who do not want representatives of nonreligious humanists sitting alongside representatives of religions at State ceremonies.
• humanists who have not joined the HAI.
• humanists who don’t think that humanism is important enough to them to join an organisation.
• humanists don’t want to have humanism represented by an organisation.
• the first dictionary definition of humanism, because that refers only to a broad worldview attaching prime importance to human matters, and it does not necessitate any position on the many specific political issues that the HAI lobbies on.
• the second dictionary definition of humanism, because it has nothing to do with the Renaissance cultural movement of humanism.

Clearly none of these arguments are valid, because the Humanist Association of Ireland is a voluntary advocacy group that is legitimately voicing the aims and policies decided by its own members.

But it is not reasonable to hold Atheist Ireland to a different standard on these matters than you are prepared to hold other voluntary advocacy groups.

Michael Nugent

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

My main point has yet again gone unanswered which is what advantage does calling the society 'Atheist Ireland' have when all the principled objectives can be achieved through secularism. There is simply no advantage. The argument should be framed that it doesn't make sense to call it 'Atheist Ireland' in the first place regardless of how many people voted for it.

Okay, I’ll elaborate a bit more than I did in my previous answer.

Part of the purpose of the name is to describe who we are, i.e. that we are atheists, and that the group evolved from the discussion board atheist.ie. This provides a bond of shared self-identification that is useful for any group of people who are founding or joining an organization.

It is useful to have people hear the word atheist used in general discourse, as it helps to normalize the word and chip away at prejudices against atheists. If atheists shy away from using the label atheist when we are doing good things, it helps to perpetuate prejudice against atheists.

One of our aims is promoting reason and atheism, and that is easier to do under the name Atheist Ireland. You can promote both atheism and secularism more easily under the name atheist than under the name secularist.

If you don’t see these as advantages, I’m not going to try to convince you otherwise. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

mickrock

frozenfrozen wrote: »

I have to clarify this a lot when talking to people about my lack of faith.

I'm not an atheist. I am atheist.

But some people might mishear you and think you said you were a theist.

You haven't thought it through.

nagirrac

Here's my contribution:
Once you start organizing people under a banner its rare that any good comes out of it. Let's say you got 1,000 people to joing Atheist Ireland. You will get all sorts of people joining but statistically you will get 20 - 30 paedophiles (that's low on the scale based on surveys, 4% is the midpoint). One child molestation case where the media reports it as an "Atheist Ireland" member and then its pretty much game over as it is for the Catholic church. True, they willl survive but in a few generations they will be gone the way of the dodo. All you can do on a personal level is to have good ideals and deeds in your own life, forget about trying to influence others.

Delirium

nagirrac wrote: »

Here's my contribution:
Once you start organizing people under a banner its rare that any good comes out of it. Let's say you got 1,000 people to joing Atheist Ireland. You will get all sorts of people joining but statistically you will get 20 - 30 paedophiles (that's low on the scale based on surveys, 4% is the midpoint). One child molestation case where the media reports it as an "Atheist Ireland" member and then its pretty much game over as it is for the Catholic church. True, they willl survive but in a few generations they will be gone the way of the dodo. All you can do on a personal level is to have good ideals and deeds in your own life, forget about trying to influence others.

that's a "contribution"?

The reason the RCC is suffering as a organisation is because protected the abusers. They moved them to a new parish were most of them began abusing again. They swore children to secrecy that had complained of abuse.

Atheist Ireland doesn't have nor is ever likely to have control of over 90% of Irish national schools. AI also isn't in a place of privilege in society like the RCC used to be.