Goodbye Atheism

MisterEpicurus

darealtulip wrote: »

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.

Even if everything you just said with regard to religious intolerance is true, it still doesn't follow that the New Atheists should be (or are justified being) equally as intolerant.

This just makes New Atheists hypocrites at the very least. There's nothing illegal about hypocrisy of course, but if you're trying to change perceptions of atheists, then it would be a good idea to drop the intolerance. And I'm not saying 'drop the intolerance' to appease religious folk either, I'm saying that New Atheists couldn't be taken seriously if they are intolerant to begin with.

You can be rational, reasonable, logical, and scientific without being patronizing and intolerant. I think it would be much more favourable for the New Atheists if the former was whole heartedly endorsed rather than the latter.

darealtulip

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Even if everything you just said with regard to religious intolerance is true, it still doesn't follow that the New Atheists should be (or are justified being) equally as intolerant.

This just makes New Atheists hypocrites at the very least. There's nothing illegal about hypocrisy of course, but if you're trying to change perceptions of atheists, then it would be a good idea to drop the intolerance. And I'm not saying 'drop the intolerance' to appease religious folk either, I'm saying that New Atheists couldn't be taken seriously if they are intolerant to begin with.

You can be rational, reasonable, logical, and scientific without being patronizing and intolerant. I think it would be much more favourable for the New Atheists if the former was whole heartedly endorsed rather than the latter.

I said it is rich coming from the religious, I never said I agree with being intolerant towards the religious. However it is an logic result, if you bully people for long enough they turn and start bullying back. I fully understand that is how people work, yet I would not class myself as intolerant towards any religion, yet I have been accused by the people that were brave enough to bully my 4 year old son, as intolerant because I criticised the local school. It is just a word they adapted against people that don't agree with the general opinion.

The "intolerant" stick gets used a bit too much in my opinion. There is a huge difference in criticising and being intolerant but they get mixed up all the time.

In the Netherlands we are beyond this point as 40% of the people don't have a religion. But in the 50's we had the same situation as we have in Ireland today. It just needs to level a bit on both sides and this takes time (probably a generation).

Two wrongs don't make right. I totally agree but I have to laugh when I hear the religious in Ireland talk about intolerance. I don't think they are realising how in your face religion is here.

I know so many people who think they have to go through the motions of the RCC (while none of them believe in god) out of pure peer pressure. I live in the North West and religion is a huge part of everyday life.

endacl

koth wrote: »

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?

Or one that includes the terms 'rational' and 'reason' in the aims and mission statement....

robindch

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Is membership of Atheist Ireland open to me?

Brown. Great to have you back with us again.

That kind of membership question is best addressed to Michael via a private message or -- even better -- via AI's website at:

http://www.atheist.ie

Michael Nugent

Tim,

I’m going to assume that most of your questions are rhetorical as you ask them every so often, get comprehensive answers to them, and then ask the same questions again some time later.

Apart from one. You have added a new question this time, which is

Tim Robbins wrote: »

(Why does Atheist Ireland) waste the time of laods of people by actualy making more and more stupid arguments about words instead of actually doing something.

Actually, we don’t. What you call “making more and more stupid arguments about words” typically come about when other people, such as you, ask questions about words, and we answer them.

That is a tiny part of what we do.

We spend most of our time working actively, on a voluntary basis and without any staff, to promote atheism, reason and an ethical, secular society.

For example, here are some of the things we have done over the past year and a half:

• Campaigned to ask people to be honest in answering the question about religion in the census.
• Highlighted the issue of discrimination against nonreligious parents who cannot opt their child out of religious instruction in Catholic primary schools.
• Regularly responded to, and assisted, parents and students who approach us with problems regarding religious instruction in their schools.
• Hosted the World Atheist Convention in Dublin, and agreed the Dublin Declaration on Secularism and the Place of Religion in Public Life.
• Met with the Department of the Taoiseach to discuss the impact of secular issues on laws and practices of the coalition Government.
• Took part in the Department of Education’s Forum on Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary Sector.
• Took part in the 2011 and 2012 annual OSCE Human Rights Meetings in Warsaw. This is the first time an Irish atheist advocacy group has taken part in an OSCE event.
• Published responses to letters that we had sent to the candidates in the Irish Presidential Election, asking their positions on secular issues.
• Hosted a public lunchtime lecture in Dublin by Professor AC Grayling, on the topic Setting Prometheus Free.
• Hosted “Is Anything Sacred?”, a public discussion of Irish and international blasphemy laws, with two world-class experts on blasphemy law.
• Launched a policy document titled five steps to civil rights in a secular Ireland. We are lobbying to promote these proposals on an ongoing basis.
• Had a briefing session in Leinster House with TDs and Senators, at which we highlighted the dangers of the Irish blasphemy law and its impact internationally. As a result of this briefing, Senator Ivana Bacik and Jillian van Turnhout raised the issue in the Seanad, including the case of Alexander Aan.
• Took part in a briefing session at the Dept of Foreign Affairs on Ireland’s Fourth Periodic Report under the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
• Met two delegations from the Council of Europe: one from the European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance and the other from the Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.
• Wrote to the Committees on Procedure and Privilege of both houses of the Oireachtas requesting an end to daily prayers.
• Met with Hibernia College to discuss the course notes that made untrue statements about atheism and atheists.
• Took part in a conference in Limerick titled Towards Mutual Ground: Religious Pluralism in Educational Practice in Irish Schools.
• Took part in a conference organised by Amnesty International, about the Government’s proposed constitutional convention. 
• Took part in a consultation at the Department of Foreign Affairs on the Draft Irish State Report to the United Nations under the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights.
• Took part in a seminar on freedom of religion and belief organised by the Irish Network Against Racism, also known as ENAR Ireland.
• Spoke about international blasphemy laws at the European Atheist Convention in Cologne, Germany.
• Supported LGBT Noise in their protest outside the Catholic Eucharistic Congress in Dublin, against the efforts by the Catholic Church to oppose equal civil rights for LGBT people.
• Took part in the fifth anniversary event of the founding of the Council of Ex Muslims in Britain.
• Joined more than twenty rights-based groups in supporting an open letter, coordinated by Amnesty International Ireland, asking the Government to include all fundamental human rights on the agenda of the proposed Constitutional Convention.
• Raised with the Minister for Education Document No. 154 of material, released to RTE under the Freedom of Information Act, about moral values being taught within a religious context in VEC community schools.
• Took part in a Consultation by the Dept of Foreign Affairs on the State Report to the United Nations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
• Took part in a conference organized by the ICCL about the implementation of equality laws in Ireland.
• Started plans to organise an international Women in Secularism conference in Dublin next year.
• Started a community outreach project, Good Without Gods, to do good things for the community without religious influence. Our Kiva Team, one of the first initiatives of this project, has already raised over US$2,000 in loans to people working to escape poverty.
• Published a weekly email newsletter Secular Sunday, which includes information about our own activities and those of other secular groups.
• Continued to raise cases internationally of atheists, Christians and Muslims who are jailed or facing execution for blasphemy in Islamic countries.
• Took part in RTE’s Late Late Show, The Front Line, and Beyond Belief programmes, TV3’s morning Ireland, and numerous radio shows on RTE, BBC Northern Ireland, Newstalk and other stations.
• Took part in in numerous talks and debates in Ireland and the UK, with Christian and Muslim spokespersons as well as academics and politicians.
• Hosted Atheist in the Pub events with Roger Yates of Vegan Ireland on veganism; Patty Gray from NUI Maynooth on the Pussy Riot trial in Russia; Victor Diac from Romania on leaving the Eastern Orthodox clergy; Vahid Bokharaie on Islam and being an Iranian atheist; Aoife McLysaght of TCD Genetics Dept on atheism and science; Sinead Redmond on the recent pro-choice campaign; Jen McCreight (Blag Hag) on atheism and feminism; David Horgan on his movie Jesus The Remake; Geoff Lillis on his encounters with Dublin street preachers; and Louise Hannon of Transgender Equality Network Ireland. 
• Made comprehensive written submissions to the Forum on Patronage and Pluralism, to the Government on the State Report to the UN under the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, to the Discussion Paper on a Regulatory Framework for school Enrolment, to the United Nations under the Universal Periodic Review, to the government on the New Human Rights and Equality Commission, to the European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance, to the Council of Europe under the Framework Convention on the Protection of National Minorities, to the Government on the State Report to the UN under the Covenant on Civil & Political Rights, to the National Council on Curriculum and Assessment, and to the OSCE on blasphemy laws, religious oaths, secular education and protecting the human rights of atheists and agnostics.

So, Tim, please feel free to continue to disagree with our name, while not disagreeing with the name of the Humanist Association of Ireland, if you feel that that is the most important issue for you to repeatedly address.

But please don’t suggest that we are not actually doing anything, because it isn’t true.

Nodin

iMyself wrote: »

Yeah :rolleyes:

O look, a one word answer and a smiley. Always indicative of an in-depth and well thought out position.

So you go on sites of organisations for wheelchair users and tell them they've no right to speak for all wheelchair users?

Michael Nugent

Tim Robbins wrote: »

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!

Tim, putting aside your gratuitous personal attack on me here, which I invite you to refrain from in the future, I agree with you on this general point.

Newspaper headlines can be frustratingly misleading, and this is often a problem with newspaper or magazine articles. Even if the writer is fair and balanced in his or her approach, a subeditor will invariably attach a headline that is aimed at grabbing the attention of readers.

The article itself did quote me as saying that I don’t see atheists being concerned with ethics as being a departure, and it did quote my draft manifesto as trying “to combine the best of our existing ideas into a set of principles”.

The article also quoted me as saying that “People feel the word atheist has a stronger assertion that it actually has. I think people believe, firstly, atheism means you are claiming with certainty that there are no gods and, secondly, that you are implying your position is unbreakable, whereas every atheist I know will say this is a position based on currently available evidence and we may be mistaken.”

So, as is typical with a newspaper feature, there is more nuance in the article than in the headline. That’s just a factor that any organization that features in the media has to deal with.

Zombrex

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Even if everything you just said with regard to religious intolerance is true, it still doesn't follow that the New Atheists should be (or are justified being) equally as intolerant.

This just makes New Atheists hypocrites at the very least. There's nothing illegal about hypocrisy of course, but if you're trying to change perceptions of atheists, then it would be a good idea to drop the intolerance. And I'm not saying 'drop the intolerance' to appease religious folk either, I'm saying that New Atheists couldn't be taken seriously if they are intolerant to begin with.

You can be rational, reasonable, logical, and scientific without being patronizing and intolerant. I think it would be much more favourable for the New Atheists if the former was whole heartedly endorsed rather than the latter.

We are intolerant of gays getting married!

Well we are intolerant of that intolerance

Hypocrite!

MisterEpicurus

Zombrex wrote: »

We are intolerant of gays getting married!

Well we are intolerant of that intolerance

Hypocrite!

I'm disappointed that you missed the point.

Religious folk are and were very intolerant of atheists and what follows from atheism.

At no point am I intolerant to you if I point out you're a hypocrite for being equally as intolerant. In fact, pointing out hypocrisy is merely stating a fact and it doesn't matter who says it, it's neutral.

In other words, pointing out hypocrisy is not intolerance. I've seen others play that linguistic sleight of hand before and quite frankly I'm disappointed it gains ground on these fora.

robindch

Michael Nugent wrote: »

For example, here are some of the things we have done over the past year and a half

Michael -- that's one seriously impressive list.

My sincere congratulations to you and the rest of the AI team.

equivariant

This thread has been great. I have up to now been an armchair atheist, content to occasionally bore my wife/other family members with how silly theism is.

Anyway, just comparing the arguments set forward here for/against organisations such as atheist Ireland, I am convinced. I have rarely seen an online debate won so decisively as Michael N just did with his justifications for atheism Ireland and his list of activities.

My check is in the post Mr Nugent - is there a Galway/Connacht branch?.

MisterEpicurus

equivariant wrote: »

This thread has been great. I have up to now been an armchair atheist, content to occasionally bore my wife/other family members with how silly theism is.

Anyway, just comparing the arguments set forward here for/against organisations such as atheist Ireland, I am convinced. I have rarely seen an online debate won so decisively as Michael N just did with his justifications for atheism Ireland and his list of activities.

My check is in the post Mr Nugent - is there a Galway/Connacht branch?.

I'm certainly not against 'Atheist Ireland'. While I support the vast majority of their endeavour's I feel the name is pretty stupid to be honest. And I don't think there's much dispute with much of their activities either. I think you're over-analyzing this to be honest.

My honest opinion would be that a lot of people on here look up to Mr. Nugent in white light and glory because his organizations aims are on par with most users of this particular forum - thus it's difficult for many people to actually criticize his organization.

EDIT: Moreover, quite shocked that (so far) 3 people 'Thanked' Zombrex post above given that it's he which has made a logical slip and not me.

recedite

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

EDIT: Moreover, quite shocked that (so far) 3 people 'Thanked' Zombrex post above given that it's he which has made a logical slip and not me.

Whats wrong with being "intolerant of intolerance"?
Its a double negative, therefore its a positive.
No hypocrisy. No logical slip.

Michael Nugent

equivariant wrote: »

This thread has been great. I have up to now been an armchair atheist, content to occasionally bore my wife/other family members with how silly theism is.

Anyway, just comparing the arguments set forward here for/against organisations such as atheist Ireland, I am convinced. I have rarely seen an online debate won so decisively as Michael N just did with his justifications for atheism Ireland and his list of activities.

My check is in the post Mr Nugent - is there a Galway/Connacht branch?.

Thanks very much, Equivariant. Great to have you involved!

We're starting local groups this year, and some of us will be in Galway for a meeting later this month.

Michael Nugent

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

My honest opinion would be that a lot of people on here look up to Mr. Nugent in white light and glory because his organizations aims are on par with most users of this particular forum - thus it's difficult for many people to actually criticize his organization.

Both we and I are always open to criticism, and I always try to make time to respond to and learn from both positive and negative feedback.

We have adjusted campaigns based on feedback, both from our members and also non-members including contributors to this board.

This time next year will be our fifth anniversary, and part of our work plan for this year is to examine our successes and failures to date, and make whatever changes we find useful for how we operate for the next five years.

iMyself

Tim Robbins wrote: »

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.

Exactly. AI is a humanist organisation. The difference is that HAI make a clear distinction between their organisation and being atheist. Whereas AI are using "atheism" as a means to drive their cause. It automatically encompasses a sizeable section of society. You dont see many articles about HAI, in the same way you dont see many articles about my grandma's bridge club. But when you are representing 220,000 atheists in Ireland, or at least people think you are and you make no effort to correct them, then that is worth writing about.

The article says "atheists are on the march" and there is a "new face to atheism". This is not because the journalist has misinterpreted what AI represent.

Michael has denied that AI are representing all atheists, but everything AI say and do is contrary to this. If this is true then it would be a simple thing to make a declaration on their website, clarifying their position and clearly stating that they represent their members only and are not an authority over atheists in Ireland.

It's not just about AI either. As peoples opinions on this forum show, there are many atheists joining in in this "lets start our own club" approach.

Dades

iMyself wrote: »

It's not just about AI either. As this forum shows there are many atheists joining in in this "lets start our own club" approach.

A forum you've just happily used to voice your opinions on a matter relating to atheism in Ireland. That's what this "club" exists for. You won't see any agenda in our Charter.

iMyself

Dades wrote: »

A forum you've just happily used to voice your opinions on a matter relating to atheism in Ireland. That's what this "club" exists for. You won't see any agenda in our Charter.

Sorry Dades I wasn't referring to boards or this forum. I meant atheists in general are very much in favour of atheism as an alternative to religion, rather than a lack of religion. And I see that attitude reflected in people's opinions in here.

Dades

In that case I now shift my disagreement to your latest post.

Strangely, I think you're now guilty of doing what you accuse many people of doing because of AI - conflating atheism with a shared set of values. Some people may subscribe to certain agendas as a result of being atheist but that doesn't mean atheism is an alternative to religion - no matter what the name of the organisation that best reflects those agendas.

iMyself

Dades wrote: »

In that case I now shift my disagreement to your latest post.

Strangely, I think you're now guilty of doing what you accuse many people of doing because of AI - conflating atheism with a shared set of values. Some people may subscribe to certain agendas as a result of being atheist but that doesn't mean atheism is an alternative to religion - no matter what the name of the organisation that best reflects those agendas.

Ok, it's a fair point. I'd agree with that and as you can see I clearly have an agenda as a result of atheism myself.

But it's different to forming an organization to push those agendas under the auspice of atheism.

Tim Robbins

Michael Nugent wrote: »

This time next year will be our fifth anniversary, and part of our work plan for this year is to examine our successes and failures to date, and make whatever changes we find useful for how we operate for the next five years.

Can I suggest you try to estimate how many hours have been wasted over discussions over choice of name (I myself have wasted at least 3 hours)?

And suggest to you to rename. This would mean you spend less time arguing over the name and the meaning of atheism and can spend more time in your campaigns. It will also mean you annoy people who you have a lot of common cause with.

Regarding humanism I already pointed out an oxford dictionary entry which specifies that it means non religious and you (and / or someone else from AI) rejected the oxford english dictionary.

If you are trying to engage the public it would make sense to accept things that the public accept for being a credible source for meaning - including the Oxford English Dictionary.

Furthermore, even if the secular humanists robbed the word humanism from Christian humanists - it does not bother me. Because thinking selfishly they have won a propaganda battle for non religious people in the same ways homo sexuals won with the word "gay". I don't see any victory you could possibly have with the word atheist, as even if you convince everyone that atheists are ethical - you will have confused even more people that atheism is belief system rather than a lack of belief system.

Peace out.

MisterEpicurus

recedite wrote: »

Whats wrong with being "intolerant of intolerance"?
Its a double negative, therefore its a positive.
No hypocrisy. No logical slip.

Because of the way these fora have a tendency to throw around the word 'Intolerance' as if it applied to anything critical whatsoever.

My observation that atheist intolerance may not be the best mechanism to change negative perceptions about atheists is not intolerant. This is because I can tolerate their way but am pointing out an alternative better mechanism to change perceptions of atheists.

For those who still equate intolerance with critical response;
Oxford English Dictionary;

"...not tolerant of views, beliefs, or behaviour that differ from one’s own:
as a society we are more intolerant of certain types of violence than we were in the past."

As for Criticism;

"...the analysis and judgement of the merits and faults of a literary or artistic work: alternative methods of criticism supported by well-developed literary theories."

I think you can clearly see that my observation applies to the definition of criticism and not intolerance.

Thus, I'm not arguing against the concept of a double-negative but against the freestyle and inaccurate use of the word 'Intolerance' on this thread.

And yes, it is hypocrisy to argue against intolerance from religious folk and to use the same weapon of choice yourself. But, as I said, I'm not intolerant to that but I think better options are available for an atheist organization to employ.

I really don't think I can make it any simpler than that so if you don't get it, then you just don't get it.

equivariant

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Can I suggest you try to estimate how many hours have been wasted over discussions over choice of name (I myself have wasted at least 3 hours)?

And suggest to you to rename. This would mean you spend less time arguing over the name and the meaning of atheism and can spend more time in your campaigns. It will also mean you annoy people who you have a lot of common cause with.

Regarding humanism I already pointed out an oxford dictionary entry which specifies that it means non religious and you (and / or someone else from AI) rejected the oxford english dictionary.

If you are trying to engage the public it would make sense to accept things that the public accept for being a credible source for meaning - including the Oxford English Dictionary.

Furthermore, even if the secular humanists robbed the word humanism from Christian humanists - it does not bother me. Because thinking selfishly they have won a propaganda battle for non religious people in the same ways homo sexuals won with the word "gay". I don't see any victory you could possibly have with the word atheist, as even if you convince everyone that atheists are ethical - you will have confused even more people that atheism is belief system rather than a lack of belief system.

Peace out.

Given all the activities outlined above, I doubt that AI spends more than a tiny fraction of their time (if even that) worrying about their name. It only seems to be a problem for some of the reactionary elements in this forum. Frankly, its a non issue. If you don't like it, that is really your problem and no one else's. They are as entitled as anyone else to use the word atheism in their name (why wouldn't they?). If someone else wrongly assumes that AI represents all Irish atheists then (s)he is an idiot. Why should AI bend over backwards to accomodate the views of idiots?

Should we ask the Irish Farmers Association to remove the world farmer from their name on the grounds that many farmers are not members? Or the Irish National Teachers Organisation to remove the word teacher on the grounds that some teachers are not members?

MisterEpicurus

equivariant wrote: »

Given all the activities outlined above, I doubt that AI spends more than a tiny fraction of their time (if even that) worrying about their name. It only seems to be a problem for some of the reactionary elements in this forum. Frankly, its a non issue. If you don't like it, that is really your problem and no one else's. They are as entitled as anyone else to use the word atheism in their name (why wouldn't they?). If someone else wrongly assumes that AI represents all Irish atheists then they are an idiot and why should AI bend over backwards to accomodate the views of idiots?

I personally don't subscribe to the view that AI represents all atheists and would agree with you that anyone who did fervently believe that is an idiot.

My contention is with the lack of utility for the name in the first place and that it doesn't actually make sense to connect certain political and moral positions to an organization who's name (i.e. Atheist) is completely neutral on said matters.

Tim Robbins

equivariant wrote: »

Given all the activities outlined above, I doubt that AI spends more than a tiny fraction of their time (if even that) worrying about their name. It only seems to be a problem for some of the reactionary elements in this forum. Frankly, its a non issue. If you don't like it, that is really your problem and no one else's. They are as entitled as anyone else to use the word atheism in their name (why wouldn't they?). If someone else wrongly assumes that AI represents all Irish atheists then they are an idiot and why should AI bend over backwards to accomodate the views of idiots?

Should we ask the Irish Farmers Association to remove the world farmer from their name on the grounds that many farmers are not members? Or the Irish National Teachers Organisation to remove the word teacher on the grounds that some teachers are not members?

I think you'd find that a far higher percentage of teachers are in the INTO than the atheists are in AI.

Also, I think you would also find that it is far easier to understand what the word "teacher" means and there is not so much hassle over the meaning of the word.

Part of the problem with atheism is that the majority of people including 90% of religious people do not even know what the word means. If they could just know what the word means:

* disbelief in gods

rather than

* absolute belief there is no god.

It would benefit everyone.

Dades

I'll have to disagree with calling people "idiots" who make can't help but assumptions about things they don't know much about. Especially when the media does nothing to dispel such assumptions.

I've no doubt we're all guilty of making associations relating to organisations with which we're not familiar.

iMyself

I think it's clear that we're not just talking about their name but also their comments and publications (a manifesto on ethical atheism for example) which indicates they are acting and speaking on behalf of atheists.

To suggest it's just a name and we misunderstand what they are about is a bit of a cop out and not really something you can argue considering the evidence.

There is no doubt AI do a lot of good in the interests of simply doing good without relying on a god, or in the interests of equality and secularism. Thats not a problem. I can also understand why people are quite happy to be associated with such an organisation.

My worry is the future implications, atheism becoming an alternative system rather than a lack of any system. Another tick box in the list rather than eradicating any need for a list in the first place. Also of a concern is their self assigned authority over all things atheist. Speaking out as to what atheists believe, publishing manifestos and ststatements on atheism etc etc.

I'm sounding like a broken record but it has to be said, and has been repeated throughout this discussion, this isn't just about them using "atheist" in their name. It's quite clearly in their name because it is what they are representing and that is reflected in their comments and publications.

equivariant

Dades wrote: »

I'll have to disagree with calling people "idiots" who make can't help but assumptions about things they don't know much about. Especially when the media does nothing to dispel such assumptions.

I've no doubt we're all guilty of making associations relating to organisations with which we're not familiar.

Fair enough - point taken. I should have said "then it is an idiotic assumption" (as you pointed out, we are all guilty of idiotic assumptions on occasion)

Michael Nugent

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Can I suggest you try to estimate how many hours have been wasted over discussions over choice of name (I myself have wasted at least 3 hours)?

Actually, that's a fair point. I have probably spent too much time trying to reassure you, and a small number of other people here, about an issue that is frankly of no concern to either our paid-up members or our 4,000 Facebook supporters.

So I am going to make two final summaries of my thoughts, on the two main issues that have been raised, and then take an indeterminate break from this discussion to focus on the actual work of promoting the aims of Atheist Ireland.

The two final points that I want you to consider are that

1. You are being dogmatic about your preferred meaning of the words atheism and atheist. Like many religious people, you are using dogma where dogma simply won’t work.
2. You are selectively applying different standards to Atheist Ireland than you or any other sensible person would to any other advocacy group with a variation of Atheist or Ireland in its name.

Here is some detail on those two final points.

Michael Nugent

This is the first of two final points I am going to make before I finish discussing this topic.

You are being dogmatic about your preferred meaning of the words atheism and atheist. You are trying to impose your personal preferences on reality, as opposed to recognizing reality and working with it. Like many religious people, you are using dogma where dogma simply won’t work.

You don’t accept the reality that (a) words are evolving tools of communication, not observed facts, (b) their meaning is whatever thoughts they trigger in the mind of the person reading or hearing them, (c) dictionaries do not give meanings to words, they retrospectively try to describe the meanings that people have recently attached to them, (d) the words atheism and atheist, like many words, mean different things to different people, and (e) these meanings, like the meanings of many words, are constantly evolving and will continue to evolve.

Also, you are selfishly selective in your dogmatism about this. You are not dogmatically insisting that these words should always have their original meanings, which was a derogatory insult aimed at people who were typically religious but who rejected the established gods of the people people calling them atheists.

You are quite happy that the original meanings of the words have evolved to include a meaning which you personally are comfortable with. But you insist that (a) there is only one true meaning, (b) your preferred meaning is the only true meaning, out of the various meanings that currently exist, and (c) your preferred meaning must always remain the only true meaning, and the language cannot continue to evolve in the future as it has in the past.

I understand that it is comfortable to think that those parts of the world that we like will always stay as they are, but it is not the case in reality.

Currently, the words atheism and atheist today can mean many things. To most atheists the words can mean anything on a scale from strong belief that there are no gods, to passive lack of belief that there are gods. To many religious people, the same words can mean anything from a person who doesn’t believe in their preferred god, to a person who espouses a religion called atheism, or a person who has no basis for morality.

When I am asked what atheism means in the context of atheist advocacy, I typically say that it can mean anything on a scale from strong belief that there are no gods, to passive lack of belief that there are gods. I also stress that atheism is not a claim of certainty, and that any atheist I know would be happy to change their mind if they got reliable evidence that a god exists. However, I say that, in ordinary day to day language, I am as confident that there are no gods as I am that there are no unicorns or leprechauns. I also say that there two significant positions that necessarily follow from rejecting belief in gods, which is rejecting that our ideas of truth and morality come from gods. I say that these are significant philosophical and ethical positions in a world where most people believe differently.

But I am not dogmatic about this. I realize that, ultimately, the word means whatever thoughts that it triggers in the mind of the person listening to me. And so I have to adjust my conversation to accommodate these nuances, otherwise I am just talking to myself.

So I suggest that you consider focusing less on dogmatic linguistics, and focusing more on helping to bring about actual positive changes in Irish society, based on whatever your personal priorities for change are.
.