Atheism v Humanism

tessat

Can somebody explain the differences and if anybody is a member of either body explain what draws you to it over the other?

magicbastarder

fairly simple - atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god, and is not a 'body' as such.

humanism is an attempt to create a moral framework which is not underpinned by religion. based along the lines of 'do unto others' style thinking.

tessat

Atheist Ireland is very much a body, they have represented Irish Atheists at the UN and are involved in lobbying the government for change to a more secular republic. They host meeting and are offer a much support to their members.

In a similar vein, Humanist Ireland also a recognised body. They have celebrants and can perform ceremonies such as weddings etc.

I was looking to know more like are they mutually exclusive or could a person be a member of both? Is it necessary to be a member? If anybody is a member of either could you explain this a bit more? Does being a member of humanist Ireland come with a set guidance relating to morals etc?

Thanks

lazygal

We joined the Humanist Association after we had a Humanist wedding. We like the outlook and philosophy of humanism and plan on using some of its materials with our children, especially if we need to deal with indoctrination in schools. I also support the recent campaign showing that there is a serious problem with schools requiring baptism certs to allow children to avail of state funded essential services.

Although not a member of Atheist Ireland I have contacted it about a religious matter and got some very helpful advice. I have also been in touch with Teach Don't Preach about school related matters, and it has some very good resources on the rights of parents and children in terms of dealing with religious indoctrination.

wp_rathead

Kinda off topic, but I gotta say the fact that Atheist Ireland was against the Presidential Age Referendum was laughable imo

Peregrinus

There's no "versus" about it; these are intersecting sets.

Atheists can be humanists - some are, and some are not. To be an atheist, the only qualification is to lack any belief in God- there's no positive, affirmative belief that you have to have. You can hold to any nontheistic philosophy, or to none.

And humanists can be atheists, but don't have to be. Humanists stress the inherent value and potential of human life, welfare, interests and culture. You can be a theist humanist or an atheist (or secular) humanist.

magicbastarder

tessat wrote: »

Atheist Ireland is very much a body

this is true, but if you are atheist (or a 'follower of atheism') it does not mean in any way that you have any affiliation with AI; no more so than you being someone who enjoys a kickabout with some mates makes you a member or fan of FIFA.

Peregrinus

magicbastarder wrote: »

this is true, but if you are atheist (or a 'follower of atheism') it does not mean in any way that you have any affiliation with AI; no more so than you being someone who enjoys a kickabout with some mates makes you a member or fan of FIFA.

. . . as soccer enthusiasts would be keen to stress today!

Hotblack Desiato

tessat wrote: »

I was looking to know more like are they mutually exclusive or could a person be a member of both?

Michael Nugent the founder of AI is also a member of HAI.

Is it necessary to be a member?

Well if it's mass time on a Sunday and the cops catch you walking down the street without your Atheist Ireland get out of jail free card, you'll be in big trouble.

volchitsa

wp_rathead wrote: »

Kinda off topic, but I gotta say the fact that Atheist Ireland was against the Presidential Age Referendum was laughable imo

Why? Am I missing something obvious here?

Hotblack Desiato

The presidential age thing wasn't just a poor pseudo-reform measure, it blocked the opportunity for something actually worthwhile like removing blasphemy.

It's fairly obvious though that the presidential age referendum was set up to fail, and catch any protest votes going.

magicbastarder

did you want the country to go into complete meltdown? concurrent blasphemy *and* gay marriage campaigns?

robindch

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It's fairly obvious though that the presidential age referendum was set up to fail, and catch any protest votes going.

Can't say I disagree. Unlike in previous referendums, I don't recall a single person this time round saying that they were going to vote against marriage equality because a vote against it was a vote against the government.

It's a pity people can't take their democracy a bit more seriously.

wp_rathead

volchitsa wrote: »

Why? Am I missing something obvious here?

They were against Presidential Age Referendum because of the oath to god you have to make, saying that at the moment an Atheist can't become president

To me that is like using Surrogacy as an argument against Marriage Equality - a complete red herring

ScumLord

I started calling myself a humanist because I didn't like theists saying I believed in nothing.

tessat

ScumLord wrote: »

I started calling myself a humanist because I didn't like theists saying I believed in nothing.

This is a very interesting POV.
I believe that as humans we have the ability to follow any moral path we choose and by choosing a path of good we are doing so without need for reward in "another life" which gives me a massive superiority complex over those who only do good to get rewarded (and of course instantly makes me feel bad for feeling superior, can't win!!)

But I get what you are saying.

Thanks everyone for the info and comments, I think I need to read up more about humanism before I make any decisions.

Fleawuss

I'm in both. I think humanism has been a great help to me to try to find a way out of the intellectual ruins of religion. I hope we see the secular society HAI and AI want. It will be more compassionate and real than what I grew up with. Good thread.

Hotblack Desiato

ScumLord wrote: »

I started calling myself a humanist because I didn't like theists saying I believed in nothing.

Why should they be allowed to define the discussion? That's like their common tactic of equating religion with morality, and equally worthless.

If they can't get their heads around the idea that people can be perfectly fine with no supernatural beliefs whatsoever, that's their problem tbh. I've as little time for spiritualist guff as I do for theistic guff.

Peregrinus

I'm with Hotblack, I think. You shouldn't feel the need to call yourself a humanist (or anything else) in order to gratify the insecurities of your critics. You should call yourself that if you think it's an honest and useful way to express your beliefs.

If there are theists who are uncomfortable with your atheism, that's rheir problem, not yours. Their discomfort with your atheism shouldn't bother you any more than Hotblack's discomfort with your humanism.

Hotblack Desiato

No discomfort with humanism, just querying the perceived need for a label to satisfy others' need to label things.

Michael OBrien

tessat wrote: »

Can somebody explain the differences and if anybody is a member of either body explain what draws you to it over the other?

If you mean the organisations in Ireland not the stances then here are some points to consider. I am a member of both.
HI deals primarily with raising awareness of Humanism, with Magazines, and also provides humanist ceremonies and helps train celebrants. Since the recent rule allowing for celebrants to solemnize marriage, they are sorta blocked from political lobbying (because of a crappy clause added for no real reason).

AI is more a political group that seek to raise awareness of discrimination for non religious people, including getting rid of that awful blasphemy law.

There is ZERO requirement for any atheist or humanist to join ANY group. But if you are one, it does you no harm to learn about them, and if you like their goals, help them by joining up. Numbers matter when a group seeks to do anything, political or social.

The biggest pain in the neck for atheists is that we are really not great at organising ourselves, as we pride ourselves on being free thinkers. There is a bit of a logical disconnect between these two stances but I suppose you have a mix of apathy and aversion to joining anything that seems in any way like a religious group, even one that has the NON- part in its description.

I have met Michael Nugent multiple times, along with others, they are all very polite passionate people. You do not have to agree with ANY of them and as long as you can rationally discuss your issues, I am sure they would be happy to listen.

Oh, I was an atheist long before I knew what the term was, and accepted the humanist label as it seemed logical in its general philosophy. I hold no dogma to it and if a better, more reasonable philosophy appeared that seemed to be an improvement over secular humanism, I would go for that. Currently I know of none. I also have no problems with questioning any idea accepted by humanists, if the reasoning is sound.

tessat

Cheers Michael, that's a great run down. Just to pick up on something you said, I've said for years that the only reason the RCC has the power it does is because people keep baptising their children to increase the "membership" and until they stop doing that the RCC will most likely continue to say they represent 80/90% of the population. In the same vein, if AI or HI can increase their membership numbers then they can show they represent a larger portion of the population. That's why I'm interested in learning more about both organisations.
I'm slightly in awe of Jane Donnelly and the work she does, she is a modern day hero fighting for the rights of children who are having a basic human right denied in our public schools.

Hotblack Desiato

It will be deeply ironic if this country abolishes discrimination in schools against gay teachers, but maintains discrimination against atheist teachers (and pupils)

The non-belief that dare not speak its name

Brian Shanahan

ScumLord wrote: »

I didn't like theists saying I believed in nothing.

I'm the exact opposite, I hate it when theists try to drag me down to their level and say that my atheism is as much a belief position as their belief in sky faries (of various breeds).

I'm of the position that belief is nearly always a bad thing, in that it gets you to take for true ideas or concepts that have no evidence for them. Hence, as much as is humanly possible (unfortunately, we are belief machines) I try to steer myself away from taking things as true when I cannot see evidence either for or against them (now the evidence doesn't have to be mine, it just has to be there and explainable to me).

smacl

Michael OBrien wrote: »

The biggest pain in the neck for atheists is that we are really not great at organising ourselves, as we pride ourselves on being free thinkers.

The above statement implies that atheists have something in common other than their lack of belief in the supernatural, which I'd dispute. A lack of a belief in the supernatural is too tenuous a link to categorise a bunch of people into a group and then make broader statements about that group. While I'm an atheist, that fact in and of itself is not enough to state what I do or don't take pride in. So while I'm an atheist, I've no interest in joining Atheist Ireland, nor do I have any great interest in humanism. It concerns me that Atheist Ireland and its members feel that they have the right to speak on behalf of atheists in general when they have no mandate to do so.

Hotblack Desiato

Secularism is important though and that's a big plank of what AI do. I'm not a member but I'm considering it, school patronage is a major concern of mine.

smacl

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Secularism is important though and that's a big plank of what AI do. I'm not a member but I'm considering it, school patronage is a major concern of mine.

I'm also an ardent secularist, and more often than not agree with AI's goals, but find the name off putting to the extent I wouldn't join them. I find it bad enough that God botherers try to label atheism as some kind of godless equivalent to their own religions without others doing the same.

School patronage is actually the other thing that also puts me off AI. I've long been enthused by Educate Together, having gone to the first one myself as a sprog, and would have concerns about AI's stance that ET is undermining the ability of non-denominational schools getting off the ground. While ET has been on the go for four decades now, it is still struggling to get new schools built to meet the increasing demand for this style of education, only starting to get the first few secondary schools built at present. IMHO, AI having a go at ET is the last thing this countries education system needs.

robindch

smacl wrote: »

AI having a go at ET is the last thing this countries education system needs.

While I think the PR could have been handled better, AI did make a valid point. And regardless of either, last week, ET announced that they'd be replacing the "multi-denominational" bit with "equality-based":

http://www.educatetogether.ie/media/national-news/important-step-educate-together

Educate Together wrote:

Educate Together will no longer describe itself as a ‘multi-denominational’ organisation but will use the term ‘Equality-based’.
At different points in the history of Educate Together, the term ‘multi-denominational’ has been opposed by families, teachers and pupils who do not identify themselves in religious terms. A working group established by the organisation found that its use implicitly suggests a religious focus that has become confusing to parents, teachers and general public. The decision to discontinue the use of ‘multi-denominational’ does not change the standing commitment of the organisation to “equality of access and esteem to children irrespective of their social, culture or religious background”.

smacl

robindch wrote: »

While I think the PR could have been handled better, AI did make a valid point. And regardless of either, last week, ET announced that they'd be replacing the "multi-denominational" bit with "equality-based"

Perhaps, but AI's move was still about as inspired as The People's front of Judea attacking The Popular Judean people's front while under Roman occupation.

robindch

smacl wrote: »

Perhaps, but AI's move was still about as inspired as The People's front of Judea attacking The Popular Judean people's front while under Roman occupation.

Can't disagree

recedite

smacl wrote: »

It concerns me that Atheist Ireland and its members feel that they have the right to speak on behalf of atheists in general when they have no mandate to do so.

AI only speaks for its own membership.

smacl wrote: »

Perhaps, but AI's move was still about as inspired as The People's front of Judea attacking The Popular Judean people's front while under Roman occupation.

Just a coincidence then, that ET has since changed its label from "Multi-denominational" to "Equality based"?
IMO by having several overlapping interest groups sparking off each other, such as ET, HAI, and AI, it prevents them from becoming too complacent and ineffective.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

AI only speaks for its own membership.

AI doesn't speak, its members do. My post was in response to post #21 in this thread by a self proclaimed member of AI who went on to make generalised statements about atheists. This tallies with previous discussions I've had here in which Michael Nugent's definition of atheism can be extended to include a shared world view beyond simply not believing in a god or gods. My opinion is that this misrepresents very many atheists.

Just a coincidence then, that ET has since changed its label from "Multi-denominational" to "Equality based"?

And in terms of educating our children into the future, what value does that carry exactly? To me it seems like no more than a distraction and waste of peoples time and resources. Much as I applaud the larger part of the work carried out by AI in terms of achieving secular goals, this one was a total farce.

IMO by having several overlapping interest groups sparking off each other, such as ET, HAI, and AI, it prevents them from becoming too complacent and ineffective.

I've no experience with HAI, but certainly would not consider either AI or ET to be in any way complacent.

54and56

I think there is a perception among the Irish masses that Atheist = some sort of Anarchist or member of the loopy brigade so calling yourself Humanist is a better more accepted label as Humanists have done a good job of being perceived as normal like Christians with marriage and funeral ceremony's, moral love thy neighbour moral codes etc. It's perceived as a kind of soft organised Atheism without the use of the word Atheism.

I'm not saying that the reality of Humanism = the perception I've painted above at all as I've had very little interaction with Humanists (other than one very well organised funeral service of a friend) but I do believe a lot of people hold that view.

Atheists who are private individuals or members of AI = Anarchists!!

Atheists who are Humanists = nice cuddly Atheists more like us (i.e. christians - not me!!)

Cabaal

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The presidential age thing wasn't just a poor pseudo-reform measure, it blocked the opportunity for something actually worthwhile like removing blasphemy.

Spot on, having it as the other referendum vote issue was only filler. Nothing more
Far more important issues could and should have been voted on

Cabaal

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

I think there is a perception among the Irish masses that Atheist = some sort of Anarchist or member of the loopy brigade

Much of that outlook has been spread by the catholic church and other faiths in Ireland, non-belief = baby eating monster.

The look of shock and horror on some (older and/or rural) people's faces when you tell them you don't believe in god is worrying.

wp_rathead

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The presidential age thing wasn't just a poor pseudo-reform measure, it blocked the opportunity for something actually worthwhile like removing blasphemy.

It's fairly obvious though that the presidential age referendum was set up to fail, and catch any protest votes going.

Cabaal wrote: »

Spot on, having it as the other referendum vote issue was only filler. Nothing more
Far more important issues could and should have been voted on

I still don't get why Atheist Ireland were against the Age Referendum

Hotblack Desiato

smacl wrote: »

but find the name off putting

I've no doubt similar arguments were heard back in the day against the likes of 'Gay Liberation Front'. We are what we are, we should reclaim the word atheist from the denigrators and haters, and use it proudly.

While ET has been on the go for four decades now, it is still struggling to get new schools built to meet the increasing demand for this style of education, only starting to get the first few secondary schools built at present. IMHO, AI having a go at ET is the last thing this countries education system needs.

AI were right though, ET (for all the very commendable things they have done in the face of great resistance from 'official Ireland') are not non-denominational. It is effectively illegal in Ireland for a truly non-denominational school to receive state funding. ET's stance glossed over a real issue, and raises the question as to whether they would choose to be explicitly non-denominational if they could. Personally I think they shouldn't put myth on the pedestal they do, even if they do so on an equal basis.

Hotblack Desiato

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

I think there is a perception among the Irish masses that Atheist = some sort of Anarchist or member of the loopy brigade

As far as my mother in law is concerned, atheist = communist. It's just the years of propaganda she was brought up with.

smacl

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I've no doubt similar arguments were heard back in the day against the likes of 'Gay Liberation Front'. We are what we are, we should reclaim the word atheist from the denigrators and haters, and use it proudly.

Who exactly are you referring to as 'We' in that statement? If you're referring to all atheists in Ireland, where's your mandate to speak on their behalf? Why should people who don't believe in a god or gods be any more proud of that fact than the fact they don't follow Man United, or don't watch Big Brother? I'm proud to be a secularist, but my atheism is entirely incidental to this and not a banner to be rallied around.

AI were right though, ET (for all the very commendable things they have done in the face of great resistance from 'official Ireland') are not non-denominational. It is effectively illegal in Ireland for a truly non-denominational school to receive state funding. ET's stance glossed over a real issue, and raises the question as to whether they would choose to be explicitly non-denominational if they could.

I don't think ET have glossed over anything, they are crystal clear in the core principals to which they aspire. With respect to religious denomination;

EducateTogather.ie wrote:

Multi-denominational i.e. all children having equal rights of access to the school, and children of all social, cultural and religious backgrounds being equally respected

From their document describing what educate together means;

In the strand called ‘Belief Systems’, the programme explains and explores the major belief systems in the world in an educational manner, teaching children about these faiths and beliefs without endorsing any particular one as religious truth. During the year, an Educate Together school may mark - in an age appropriate way - festivals such as Chinese New Year, Easter, Bealtaine, Hindu Festival of Lights (Diwali), Harvest Festivals, Samhain (Halloween), Ramadan and Eid, Hannuka and Christmas. The programme allows the school to explore the similarities and differences with the older celebrations that underlie many of these festivals. Examples would be the Celtic festivals and practices that underpin Easter or the solstice festivals that occur around Christmas.

It is normal that the treatment of these events becomes integrated into the whole school programme, involving drama, art, music, history and geography and also in many cases, parental and community participation. This may mean exploring wider cultural themes such as cuisine and family celebrations. The range of such activities within an individual school will be determined by local conditions.

The educational aim of this work is to model positive information about world faiths in a respectful atmosphere which highlights rights and responsibilities

What I take from this is the importance of celebrating diversity in an increasingly multi-cultural society, where polarising people into opposing factions based on their ethnicity or religious background represents a major risk to that society flourishing.

Personally I think they shouldn't put myth on the pedestal they do, even if they do so on an equal basis.

I don't believe they do, they simply acknowledge diversity as something that is positive and should be celebrated. To borrow your own metaphor, very much like Ireland's visible celebration and respect for gay rights.

54and56

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

We are what we are, we should reclaim the word atheist from the denigrators and haters, and use it proudly.

+1

lazygal

Thing is though, multidemoninational can't be inclusive as a term because it implies everyone is of some denomination. And my children aren't. Mutlidemoninational is used inter-changeably with non-denomational in Ireland (and I have correspondance from the Dept. to that effect), but I see it as an exclusionary term. If you're not of any denomination, are you included in a multidenominational organisation?

I am happy that ET has now changed from what is an exclusionary term to something that means I feel my children can be included. But it also begs the question, what is ET doing to keep on side of the Dept. in terms of the rules for national schools, is the Dept. applying a don't ask, don't tell approach to the fact that children coming to know God is the number one aim of national schooling in Ireland, and, if so, why is this rule still in place? If that is the case, why does ET need to cover the religions that are mainstream enough to give a shout out to in the learn together programme? Could it drop the programme and cover relgion in history, geography and cultural programmes?

smacl

lazygal wrote: »

Thing is though, multidemoninational can't be inclusive as a term because it implies everyone is of some denomination.

Which I guess is why ET are very explicit about their usage of the term. Try typing 'define non-denominational' into google by comparison and you get the following;



Unlike very well defined and understood words, such a atheist, you won't find the terms multi-denominational or non-denominational in mainstream dictionaries. As such, the semantics you associate with them vary by speaker and the terms themselves are non-definitive. ET are very clear about their usage of the term multi-denominational in that it is inclusive, specifically;

ET wrote:

From its formation in the mid-1970s, Educate Together has defined this term to include all denominations of all faiths. Thus Educate Together schools are committed to the principle that all religious backgrounds should be equally respected in the operation of the school. Included in this definition are humanist, agnostic and atheistic viewpoints and a generic concept of ‘personal creed’.

If you or AI choose to take a different meaning for the term, that's your prerogative, but it seems to me to be disingenuous to suggest that is what ET mean and label them as exclusionary on that basis.

lazygal

Multidenominational is used to imply every denomination is included, and we'll stick you under it anyway, even if you aren't of any denomination. Why even use a term with the word 'denominational' in it at all? I'm happy ET have decided to drop this term, but I'm also wondering how this change will affect its standing under the Rule 68 proviso that all children coming to know God remains the number one priority of national schools in Ireland. Is this why the learn together programme will remain in place, so children will come to know God in a specific curriculum, rather than dropping the programme in favour of more time spent on other core subjects?

Michael OBrien

smacl wrote: »

The above statement implies that atheists have something in common other than their lack of belief in the supernatural, which I'd dispute. A lack of a belief in the supernatural is too tenuous a link to categorise a bunch of people into a group and then make broader statements about that group. While I'm an atheist, that fact in and of itself is not enough to state what I do or don't take pride in. So while I'm an atheist, I've no interest in joining Atheist Ireland, nor do I have any great interest in humanism. It concerns me that Atheist Ireland and its members feel that they have the right to speak on behalf of atheists in general when they have no mandate to do so.

All atheists are human, they do share common desires. The 'atheism' part is a tiny part of the issue here. Humans deserve equal rights, should not suffer discrimination, should be represented equally in government, and should have the right to have free speech.
None of this need be linked to 'atheism' necessarily, but 'atheists' are not JUST defined by atheism. They have other rights, that are often solely allotted to religious groups, due to tradition, and thus awareness is needed to readdress that fact.

AI does not represent ALL atheists, they represent their members. HI does not represent all humanists, they represent their members. This is similar to any group not necessarily representing the greater set they are a subset of.

If you are an atheist that holds different views, then fine, they don't represent you, and you are free to say that. They don't and will not say they represent ALL atheists or humanists.

They do have the mandate to speak for their group of atheists, and their view on what that group's goals are.

The alternative is to not have any groups, unless EVERY person that uses that label agrees with everything they propose. Using that logic, there would be no groups about anything. We would have no political or social clout at all and return to being the bogeymen and woman of Ireland, as priests and apologists for theism would be the ones to 'represent' what atheists believe or don't believe.

smacl

Michael OBrien wrote: »

'atheists' are not JUST defined by atheism

That's my point exactly. To many, myself included, atheism might be the tiniest facet of their character and as such being atheist says almost nothing about them. So when I see a statement such as 'atheists pride themselves on being free thinkers' I see the same stereotyping that religious types are so often accused of. This can very easily lead to polarising people into opposing factions, which I personally consider potentially dangerous to a fragile society.

smacl

lazygal wrote: »

Multidenominational is used to imply every denomination is included, and we'll stick you under it anyway, even if you aren't of any denomination.

You only need to imply something for a given context in the absence of an explicit definition. ET are explicit in their definition in the context of their schools, and this definition neither excludes nor labels anyone. I know AI prefer the term non-denominational and find it rather ironic that it seems to be commonly used to refer to people of any Christian denomination.

Michael OBrien

smacl wrote: »

That's my point exactly. To many, myself included, atheism might be the tiniest facet of their character and as such being atheist says almost nothing about them. So when I see a statement such as 'atheists pride themselves on being free thinkers' I see the same stereotyping that religious types are so often accused of. This can very easily lead to polarising people into opposing factions, which I personally consider potentially dangerous to a fragile society.

A bit hyperbolic.
Yes, I agree that over generalisations can be problematic at times, and obviously not all atheists are free thinkers (I don't really like that label) or sceptics, or A+ supporters, or 'brights' or whatever. We are just not theists.
I agree that one should be critical of anyone that attempts to squeeze in philosophy into 'atheism' the label or attempt to say ALL atheists are such and such a way. The same goes for humanism in some respects, but at least that IS a philosophy, although perhaps not exactly what some humanists might define it as.

So what options do you propose, and still achieve some actual progress for non theists out there?
Atheist Ireland is not a requirement for atheists, and of course you are completely free to disagree with them publicly and privately.
They are a group of like-minded atheists that work towards shared goals.
Perhaps what is missing is your voice in their midst. Perhaps by joining them you can help prevent over generalisations, thus making the organisation more in line with your views, and thus making it more palatable.

ScumLord

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Why should they be allowed to define the discussion? That's like their common tactic of equating religion with morality, and equally worthless.

It was mostly a joke. Love humans though, we're the best.

smacl

Michael OBrien wrote: »

So what options do you propose, and still achieve some actual progress for non theists out there?
Atheist Ireland is not a requirement for atheists, and of course you are completely free to disagree with them publicly and privately.
They are a group of like-minded atheists that work towards shared goals.
Perhaps what is missing is your voice in their midst. Perhaps by joining them you can help prevent over generalisations, thus making the organisation more in line with your views, and thus making it more palatable.

No real options, but I consider ET as the most significant positive force in terms of real progress for non-theists in this country in recent decades. Having generations where a significant proportion of children have not been indoctrinated by religious bigotry at school on a daily basis is huge. As the Jesuits would be quick to point out, religion can only survive if is taught at a young age.

In terms of self labelling, I consider myself secularist, and to that extent anti-theist insofar that I have a deep distrust of organised religion and abhor theocracy at any level. I think of AI as a secular organisation more so than an atheist one, but given they're the ones doing the leg work respect that they can call themselves whatever they want. I applaud their efforts and appreciate what they've achieved but wouldn't be tempted to join under the current banner. The reason here is that secularism is not atheism, and confusing the two suggests that you cannot be theistic and secularist at the same time. This is clearly not the case, so I'm out on that basis.

Michael OBrien

smacl wrote: »

I applaud their efforts and appreciate what they've achieved but wouldn't be tempted to join under the current banner. The reason here is that secularism is not atheism, and confusing the two suggests that you cannot be theistic and secularist at the same time. This is clearly not the case, so I'm out on that basis.

Secularism and atheism are not contradictory however. As long as they don't conflict then one can be both and an organisation can call itself either without any obvious problem.
There are atheists that do not support secularism, preferring the idea of an atheistic or more accurately anti-theistic government, where theism was actively discouraged.

I have many labels, but I wear them lightly and don't let them shoehorn my thinking. I am a secularist, a humanist, an atheist, an anti-theist, an empiricist, a scientific materialist and a sceptic at this time, among other labels too numerous to list here.

I joined both organisations because I agree with some of their functions. I am free to leave at any time, or disagree with them about anything, without consequence to me personally.

smacl

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Secularism and atheism are not contradictory however. As long as they don't conflict then one can be both and an organisation can call itself either without any obvious problem.

No, but naming a secularist organisation Atheist Ireland to my mind suggests that theist secularists are excluded. My notion of secularism is inclusive, with theists entirely welcome and recognised. The goal is simply that decision making is not influenced by theological doctrine or religious belief, nor is religious instruction carried out by the state or in any way mandatory.

More simply, in a multicultural society, the big question for me isn't who's right and who's wrong? so much as how are we all going to manage to get along as such a diverse group? Back in the day, I was a big fan of laicité, but now I wonder does it cause as many rifts as it cures? I think we need a softer secularism which gives everyone enough space to maintain their own identity.