Goodbye Atheism

darealtulip

I do hope that you are right that AI will not be here any more in a few generations. That would mean there is no need for them to exist.

I was never busy with being atheist. That only came when I moved to Ireland where it suddenly was strange that I do not belong to a religion.

But even then it was only a matter of people looking strange at me. When my son went to school it became suddenly very different. Religion was pushed upon my son from all sides.

I realised how "in your face" religion is in Ireland. The aggression from people when you criticise their religion was unreal.

I ever only experienced that here in Ireland and from part of the Islamic religions in my own country.

I really hope that this aggression will indeed be gone by the next generation.

nagirrac

koth wrote: »

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.

You're missing my point. In today's instant communication world nobody will get away with trying to cover up abuse. The Catholic church is a relic of the past and will vanish in time. Don't repeat the mistakes of the past. Institutions are places where paedophiles hide, look at what Jimmy Saville is doing to the BBC currently. An organization as big as that could not weed out one monster.

darealtulip

nagirrac wrote: »

You're missing my point. In today's instant communication world nobody will get away with trying to cover up abuse. The Catholic church is a relic of the past and will vanish in time. Don't repeat the mistakes of the past.

Sadly it is still not game over for the catholic church, I still see many people filling the money box and bringing their children to church

nagirrac

darealtulip wrote: »

Sadly it is still not game over for the catholic church, I still see many people filling the money box and bringing their children to church

So what? People are entitled to practice their religion. What are you suggesting as an alternative?

iMyself

darealtulip wrote: »

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.

You're missing my point. It's not about my personal crusade. You dont see my point, thats fine.

iMyself

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

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.

I think Mr Nugent has already clarified that the definition of atheist is evolving and his organization are perfectly entitled to redefine it and attach a godless religion to its meaning.

He also appears to have the authority to tell people to find a new word to describe their lack of belief in deities.

I'd be interested in hearing what the international community thinks of his new definition and how they feel about his self assigned authority over them and all things atheist.

It makes no sense to call yourself secular Ireland when your objectives are to setup an alternative system on a par with religion, but without a God. Because that is not secularism, you still have the same problem of sections of society being excluded. But What they will achieve is to make us an even smaller minority. But they dont seem to care, all they care about is taking care of themselves and their own kind. Again, not very secular.

Delirium

nagirrac wrote: »

You're missing my point. In today's instant communication world nobody will get away with trying to cover up abuse. The Catholic church is a relic of the past and will vanish in time. Don't repeat the mistakes of the past. Institutions are places where paedophiles hide, look at what Jimmy Saville is doing to the BBC currently. An organization as big as that could not weed out one monster.

so you want a world with no organisations? No soccer/film/book/knitting clubs? No amnesty international? no Christian/Muslim/Jewish groups? No medical associations? no government?

Mickeroo

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 is daft.

darealtulip

iMyself wrote: »

You're missing my point. It's not about my personal crusade. You dont see my point, thats fine.

There is a difference between missing your point and not seeing your point.

It is definitely not seeing your point.

I am glad that is fine.

Michael Nugent

iMyself wrote: »

I think Mr Nugent has already clarified that the definition of atheist is evolving and his organization are perfectly entitled to redefine it and attach a godless religion to its meaning.

He also appears to have the authority to tell people to find a new word to describe their lack of belief in deities.

I'd be interested in hearing what the international community thinks of his new definition and how they feel about his self assigned authority over them and all things atheist.

Wow! :eek:

You were doing fine as far as

“I think Mr Nugent has already clarified that the definition of atheist is evolving...’

and then you started to either just make things up or write words at random.

For the benefit of anyone who has started to read this thread on page 5, I have never said any of the things that iMyself has attributed to me here.

I am strongly and actively opposed to the idea of a godless religion, I have no authority to tell anyone how to describe anything (though iMyself seems to think that he/she has that authority), I don't have a new definition of atheism (I accept the reality that the word means different things to different people), and I have no self-assigned authority over anybody or anything atheist.

iMyself, you say that you have spent your entire life fighting for something unspecified related to atheism, and your only public expression on this message board of your entire life’s fight has been to sign up yesterday solely to attack Atheist Ireland and then make up bizarre assertions and attribute them to me.

I’ll be gracious enough to assume that you are acting in good faith, and ask you to please withdraw the false assertions that you have attributed to me.
.

Michael Nugent

nagirrac wrote: »

Don't repeat the mistakes of the past. Institutions are places where paedophiles hide, look at what Jimmy Saville is doing to the BBC currently.

Also, buildings are other places where paedophiles hide.

We should demolish all buildings and not build any new ones.

iMyself

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Wow! :eek:

You were doing fine as far as

“I think Mr Nugent has already clarified that the definition of atheist is evolving...’

and then you started to either just make things up or write words at random.

For the benefit of anyone who has started to read this thread on page 5, I have never said any of the things that iMyself has attributed to me here.

I am strongly and actively opposed to the idea of a godless religion, I have no authority to tell anyone how to describe anything (though iMyself seems to think that he/she has that authority), I don't have a new definition of atheism (I accept the reality that the word means different things to different people), and I have no self-assigned authority over anybody or anything atheist.

iMyself, you say that you have spent your entire life fighting for something unspecified related to atheism, and your only public expression on this message board of your entire life’s fight has been to sign up yesterday solely to attack Atheist Ireland and then make up bizarre assertions and attribute them to me.

I’ll be gracious enough to assume that you are acting in good faith, and ask you to please withdraw the false assertions that you have attributed to me.
.

Your comments, on here and in the media, are there for all to read and come to their own conclusions. And you can hardly expect me to now withdraw my assertions after you have just done the very same thing you are accusing me of, now can you. To suggest my only contribution has been to this forum when you don't even know me, is quite clearly wrong. Or to suggest I am some one man band with my own ****ed up interpretation of what it means to be atheist is also wrong.

You can continue with your mission to invent an atheist handbook of morals and ethics all you want (I'll avoid calling it a bible), that is your right. But don't dare tell me I cannot confront you about it or speak my mind so long as you are claiming to represent me.

For what its with, I'm perfectly entitled to sign up here with the sole purpose to confront your organisation. You can claim all you like that you are not represent atheists of Ireland but the facts are that this is exactly what you are doing in the media, for all to read, hear and see.

Your organisations political ties to the Labour party are also there for all to see and come to their own conclusions.

You say you do not represent atheists, only your own members? Then please stop talking as if you are. I have no right to tell you what you can or cannot do. But I do have the right to speak out against it.

iMyself

darealtulip wrote: »

There is a difference between missing your point and not seeing your point

Is that so.

(not specifically directed at darealtulip) This redefining the English language to suit your arguments seems to be a common trend on here. Ironic really the similarity with how creationists redefine science to suit their arguments. Likewise with them it is impossible to argue against because you'll always have an answer once you claim your right to invent your own language or science.

swampgas

iMyself wrote: »

[...] rant [...].

It would seem that you're pretty angry at something, and I get the impression that you're projecting all that anger at AI and Michael Nugent.

Is there some other aspect of the label Atheist that is making you angry?

There have been quite a few posters in the past who come along with a similar message: "I don't believe in God but don't you dare call me an atheist! And don't pretend I'm one of you outspoken atheists either!".

Personally I think there is still a massive stigma attached to the label "atheist" in Ireland, and some people don't want to admit that that the label applies to them. Might this be the case with you?

Michael Nugent

iMyself wrote: »

You can hardly expect me to now withdraw my assertions after you have just done the very same thing you are accusing me of, now can you...

To suggest my only contribution has been to this forum when you don't even know me, is quite clearly wrong. Or to suggest I am some one man band with my own ****ed up interpretation of what it means to be atheist is also wrong...

Don't dare tell me I cannot confront you about it or speak my mind so long as you are claiming to represent me...

Your organisations political ties to the Labour party are also there for all to see and come to their own conclusions...

There you go again. You’re attributing more assertions to me that I have never made.

I did not say that your only contribution has been to this forum. I said that your only contribution to this forum has been to attack Atheist Ireland and make up assertions and attribute them to me. You have not discussed anything else about atheism on this forum.

I did not suggest that you are some one man band with your own ****ed up interpretation of what it means to be atheist. I said that I accept the reality that different people attach different meanings to the word atheist. That includes your preferred meaning.

Yet again, I am not telling you that you can’t speak your mind, and I am not claiming to represent you.

With regard to your entirely new false assertion, Atheist Ireland has no political ties to the Labour Party.

Now I am going to politely repeat my request that you please withdraw the false assertions that you have attributed to me.

iMyself

Michael Nugent wrote: »

There you go again. You’re attributing more assertions to me that I have never made.

I did not say that your only contribution has been to this forum. I said that your only contribution to this forum has been to attack Atheist Ireland and make up assertions and attribute them to me. You have not discussed anything else about atheism on this forum.

I did not suggest that you are some one man band with your own ****ed up interpretation of what it means to be atheist. I said that I accept the reality that different people attach different meanings to the word atheist. That includes your preferred meaning.

Yet again, I am not telling you that you can’t speak your mind, and I am not claiming to represent you.

With regard to your entirely new false assertion, Atheist Ireland has no political ties to the Labour Party.

Now I am going to politely repeat my request that you please withdraw the false assertions that you have attributed to me.

Michael, this was never meant to be a personal attack against you. I have strong objections to Atheist Ireland and I came on here to voice my objections in particular to the article in my first post.

Im happy to back off as I totally agree I'm not coming across too well on here. And I withdraw any false assertions I have attributed to you.

But also please understand that "you" was being used un the plural, any comments I made about you, Michael, I used your name.

I also hope you take on board the genuine argument, as some other posters have done a better job of arguing without sounding crazy, that some people really do object to others claiming to represent them. Whether that be true or just that it comes across like that, I think you (plural) could do a better job at clarifying your position. You have done so on here, so that is appreciated. I look forward to reading the next article or interview where your position is also made clear.

nagirrac

koth wrote: »

so you want a world with no organisations? No soccer/film/book/knitting clubs? No amnesty international? no Christian/Muslim/Jewish groups? No medical associations? no government?

No, the first group you mention are based on people's hobbys and not based on what people believe. Amnesty International does not take a position on what people believe. My point is a simple one, once you set up an organization based on what people believe and give guidelines on behavior you set yourself for failure in my opinion. When an event happens (I used paedophilia as an example), although it may be contrary to the guidelines of the organization, all atheists will be "guilty by association". Just as all Catholics are guilty by association now because they had monsters in their midst and didn't weed them out. How you go about weeding them out is not trivial.

iMyself

swampgas wrote: »

Personally I think there is still a massive stigma attached to the label "atheist" in Ireland, and some people don't want to admit that that the label applies to them. Might this be the case with you?

Yes pretty much. I'm not happy how it has become a belief system. A "type" which is used to categorize a person. As I've said, with religions you have to sign up to it but with this new age redefinition of atheism you are automatically pigeon holed. Thats pretty much all I'm angry about and I see AI as the main instigators in Ireland. More so for my 2 year old son than myself. I would just love for him to grow up without being labelled with a belief system or categorised as a particular class or type based on his beliefs or lack of beliefs.

Michael Nugent

iMyself wrote: »

Michael, this was never meant to be a personal attack against you. I have strong objections to Atheist Ireland and I came on here to voice my objections in particular to the article in my first post.

Im happy to back off as I totally agree I'm not coming across too well on here. And I withdraw any false assertions I have attributed to you.

But also please understand that "you" was being used un the plural, any comments I made about you, Michael, I used your name.

Okay, thanks.

I appreciate that you have strong objections to Atheist Ireland. From what you have written here, I think at least some of your objections are based on misperceptions about what we actually do and why we do it.

I also appreciate that you feel as strongly about atheism as I and the other members of Atheist Ireland do. I admire that. I think it is good that you see this issue as important, regardless of whether you agree with us.

Discussing nuances can be difficult on the Internet. If you want attend one of our events, or to meet for a cup of coffee sometime, to discuss your opinions and see what we can learn from them, please feel free to PM me here or email me at chair at atheist.ie

General Relativity

Michael Nugent wrote: »

If you want attend one of our events, or to meet for a cup of coffee sometime,

I suddenly don't feel safe in this forum anymore.

robindch

I'm sure it won't be in an elevator+

nagirrac

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I also appreciate that you feel as strongly about atheism as I and the other members of Atheist Ireland do.

Just out of curioisity why would anyone feel strongly about atheism?
Surely what people feel strongly about are the issues and positions you link atheism to in your charter for Atheist Ireland.

The position of linking atheism to "reason" is highly questionable give that most of the great philophical thinkers in history believed in God
The position of linking atheism to science is highly questionable given not just historically but in the present day how many scientists believe in some version of God
Are women's right really an issue in modern Ireland (I don't know) or are you talking about abortion rights? What about the atheists who are not pro choice?

I am also curious why you don't addres at all (as far as I can see) two big questions poeple ask about "strong" atheists, the position on the right to practice religion and the position on democracy.

Is Atheist Ireland firm of the conviction that people should be free to practice their religion without interference from the state? If so, why don't you say so?

Is atheist Ireland firmly in favor of democratic principles i.e. the right to both elect one's government and throw them out. If so why don't you say so?

I think if you addressed those two issues many people would be less inclined to believe some of the myths about strong atheists.

equivariant

nagirrac wrote: »

Just out of curioisity why would anyone feel strongly about atheism?
Surely what people feel strongly about are the issues and positions you link atheism to in your charter for Atheist Ireland.

The position of linking atheism to "reason" is highly questionable give that most of the great philophical thinkers in history believed in God
The position of linking atheism to science is highly questionable given not just historically but in the present day how many scientists believe in some version of God
Are women's right really an issue in modern Ireland (I don't know) or are you talking about abortion rights? What about the atheists who are not pro choice?

I am also curious why you don't addres at all (as far as I can see) two big questions poeple ask about "strong" atheists, the position on the right to practice religion and the position on democracy.

Is Atheist Ireland firm of the conviction that people should be free to practice their religion without interference from the state? If so, why don't you say so?

Is atheist Ireland firmly in favor of democratic principles i.e. the right to both elect one's government and throw them out. If so why don't you say so?

I think if you addressed those two issues many people would be less inclined to believe some of the myths about strong atheists.

Classic "have you stopped beating your wife?"

Michael Nugent

nagirrac wrote: »

I am also curious why you don't addres at all (as far as I can see) two big questions poeple ask about "strong" atheists, the position on the right to practice religion and the position on democracy.

Are you assuming that Atheist Ireland represents only "strong atheists"?

Strong atheism refers to whether you actively believe there is no god. It is sometimes called positive atheism or explicit atheism.

Weak atheism refers to whether you passively do not believe that there is a god. It is sometimes called negative atheism or implicit atheism.

Atheist Ireland members are a mix of strong and weak atheists.

I don't see how either position on atheism would map on to different positions on democracy. Have you seen any evidence of that?

nagirrac wrote: »

Is Atheist Ireland firm of the conviction that people should be free to practice their religion without interference from the state? If so, why don't you say so?

Is atheist Ireland firmly in favor of democratic principles i.e. the right to both elect one's government and throw them out. If so why don't you say so?

I agree with Equivariant that these questions seem phrased in a "have you stopped beating your wife" manner.

However, you are mistaken when you say that we don't express our position on them. We do.

Our position is expressed in the Dublin Declaration on Secularism, agreed at the World Atheist Convention in Dublin last year.

1. Personal Freedoms

• Freedom of conscience, religion and belief are private and unlimited. Freedom to practice religion should be limited only by the need to respect the rights and freedoms of others.
• All people should be free to participate equally in the democratic process.
• Freedom of expression should be limited only by the need to respect the rights and freedoms of others. There should be no right ‘not to be offended’ in law. All blasphemy laws, whether explicit or implicit, should be repealed and should not be enacted.

2. Secular Democracy

• The sovereignty of the State is derived from the people and not from any god or gods.
• The only reference in the constitution to religion should be an assertion that the State is secular.
• The State should be based on democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Public policy should be formed by applying reason, and not religious faith, to evidence.
• Government should be secular. The state should be strictly neutral in matters of religion and its absence, favouring none and discriminating against none.
• Religions should have no special financial consideration in public life, such as tax-free status for religious activities, or grants to promote religion or run faith schools.
• Membership of a religion should not be a basis for appointing a person to any State position.
• The law should neither grant nor refuse any right, privilege, power or immunity, on the basis of faith or religion or the absence of either.

3. Secular Education

• State education should be secular. Religious education, if it happens, should be limited to education about religion and its absence.
• Children should be taught about the diversity of religious and nonreligious philosophical beliefs in an objective manner, with no faith formation in school hours.
• Children should be educated in critical thinking and the distinction between faith and reason as a guide to knowledge. Science should be taught free from religious interference.

4. One Law For All

• There should be one secular law for all, democratically decided and evenly enforced, with no jurisdiction for religious courts to settle civil matters or family disputes.
• The law should not criminalise private conduct because the doctrine of any religion deems such conduct to be immoral, if that private conduct respects the rights and freedoms of others.
• Employers or social service providers with religious beliefs should not be allowed to discriminate on any grounds not essential to the job in question.

We have more specific policies on particular issues, but that should give you an overview of where we stand.

nagirrac wrote: »

I think if you addressed those two issues many people would be less inclined to believe some of the myths about strong atheists.

Okay. Now some questions for you.

What people specifically ask these "two big questions" of "strong atheists"?

What myths specifically are you talking about?

Having addressed your two issues, do you think many people would be less inclined to believe some of these myths with regard to Atheist Ireland?

Having addressed these two issues, are you personally less inclined to believe some of these myths with regard to Atheist Ireland?

Have you also asked these two questions on discussion boards about Islam? If so, what answers did you get?

Brown Bomber

Michael,

Is membership of Atheist Ireland open to me? I would be behind the group's aims & mission statement on their own merits but I am not atheist.

1. Mission Statement
1. Atheist Ireland aims to build a rational, ethical and secular society free from superstition and supernaturalism.
2. Aims
2.1. To promote atheism and reason over superstition and supernaturalism.
2.2. To promote an ethical and secular Ireland where the state does not support or fund or give special treatment to any religion.
3. Membership
3.1. Any person or who agrees with the mission and aims can be a member.

Thanks.

MagicMarker

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Michael,

Is membership of Atheist Ireland open to me? I would be behind the group's aims & mission statement on their own merits but I am not atheist.

Thanks.

Did you not read 3.1?

3.1. Any person or who agrees with the mission and aims can be a member.

Delirium

I'm actually curious as to why BB would wish to join a group that promotes atheism in preference to his own religious beliefs. Surely he's setting himself up for conflict with the group from the outset?

nagirrac

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Okay. Now some questions for you.

What people specifically ask these "two big questions" of "strong atheists"?

What myths specifically are you talking about?

Having addressed your two issues, do you think many people would be less inclined to believe some of these myths with regard to Atheist Ireland?

Having addressed these two issues, are you personally less inclined to believe some of these myths with regard to Atheist Ireland?

Have you also asked these two questions on discussion boards about Islam? If so, what answers did you get?

I am pleased to see Atheist Ireland formally adopt a secularist standpoint. Secularism is a core human rights issue and it is past time that Ireland joined other modern democracies in separating church and state and ensuring equal rights to believers and non-believers equally. However, the issue surely is how to get there given that I assume there would have to be a referendum to change the constitution / laws. As the majority are still believers this is an education issue to convince the public of the benefits to overall society of a secular approach. I honestly do not see how strong atheism can help much in this effort as I believe intolerant figures like Richard Dawkins are actually counterproductive. Thats my opinion but I wish you well in your efforts, the secularist cause is worth fighting for and I applaud you for embracing it.

As for your questions:

I am sure you are aware that many religious and spiritual people are deeply suspicious of the motives of New Atheism. The "myths" I am referring to are the fear that religious belief and practice would be attacked which is obviously not a secularist position. Another myth is that when societies adopt atheism and are intolerant towards religion totalitarianism follows.

As for Atheist Ireland adopting a secularist position, I do not feel it will change people's minds so long as they see people like Richard Dawkins as the face of the secularism position. Dawkins is too intolerant of religion to win anyone over to secularism. Secularism is about tolerance and a neutral stance on beliefs.

As for myself I find fundamentalists and New Atheists two sides of the same coin in terms of irrationality, so no in general. However, I don't know enough about Atheist Ireland to comment further. If Atheist Ireland were to focus their efforts on educating people in Ireland on the value of a secularist society and not engage in attacking religious beliefs I would fully support it.

I have not posted any questions specifically about Islam.

darealtulip

maybe people are intolerant towards religion because religion is almost per definition intolerant of people with different views. I experienced this first hand when I criticised my sons school in public and the "tolerant" religious people of the village took it out on my 4 year old son.

Religion has bullied people into their ways for centuries. I find it very rich to say that new atheists are intolerant when we look at the history of religion.

Tim Robbins

Irish Times Letters today wrote:

Sir, – Joe Humphreys’s article on the Atheist Ireland annual general meeting (Arts Ideas, October 26th) ends by asking, “Does this represent a softening of the New Atheist stance? Or are Irish atheists simply becoming better understood?” I hope that Atheist Ireland is becoming better understood, but not at the expense of “New Atheism” remaining misunderstood. The “myth that [we] are all one-dimensional, rabidly anti-religious Dawkinsians” rests on the underlying myth of a one-dimensional, rabidly anti-religious Richard Dawkins. We need to dispel both of these myths.

“New Atheism” as promoted by Richard Dawkins has always combined promotion of critical thinking and science, strong rejection of religious beliefs that are unsupported by evidence, active campaigns against the harm caused by religion around the world, and philanthropic and charitable projects such as Nonbelievers Giving Aid and Foundation Beyond Belief.

Atheist Ireland is part of this evolving project, not a deviation from it. We promote atheism and reason over supernaturalism and superstition, and we promote an ethical and secular Ireland where the State does not support or fund or give special treatment to any religion.

We reject religious beliefs that are silly in their claims about reality, such as intervening personal gods who answer prayers and impregnate virgins to give birth to themselves; and religious beliefs that are harmful in their corruption of human morality, from Catholic sexism and homophobia to Islamic floggings and executions for blasphemy.

We believe that society should address ethical issues based on human rights and compassion, and applying reason to empirical evidence, and not on religious doctrines; and that individual ethical decisions should where possible be made on the basis of personal autonomy and individual conscience, while not infringing on the rights of others.

We continue to campaign for a secular Irish Constitution that allows an atheist to become president or a judge, a secular Irish education system that does not indoctrinate children of atheist parents with religious beliefs, and secular Irish laws that do not exempt religions from complying with our equality laws.

We want all people who share these beliefs to feel welcome in Atheist Ireland. We include people of diverse backgrounds on our organising committees and event panels, we aim for a reasonable gender balance in our activities, and we host our events in venues that accommodate people with disabilities.

We’re always happy to be better understood, and we would like to thank The Irish Times for publishing Joe Humphreys’s article. – Yours, etc,.

Ok someone please tell me the difference between these goals and those of the humanist society????

And could someone also please tell me how a bunch of people who consider themselves very rational do the following:

* confuse people who don't understand the word atheist even more over the meaning of the word atheism
* set up an organisation with the aims of another organisation
* waste the time of laods of people by actualy making more and more stupid arguments about words instead of actually doing something.

It would make more sense if they were called:

"The Real Humanist society" or the "The continuity Humanist Society".

The headline of the original article where it makes out that atheists are beginning to soften up is very patronising. Are we only getting interested in charity because of Michael Nugent and his irrational rationality? What a load of utter crap!

- Annoyed.