Kildare atheist group

paddie9

Don't think there's an atheist group in Kildare. Maybe we could set something up.
Would venue be an issue? Is there many places willing to allow atheist in.

TheChizler

I'm not aware of any county specific groups TBH. Are they a thing?

paddie9

TheChizler wrote: »

I'm not aware of any county specific groups TBH. Are they a thing?

We'll atheist ireland are all based in Dublin even the humanist groups are all there. Nothing I'm kildare that I know of.

Cabaal

paddie9 wrote: »

We'll atheist ireland are all based in Dublin even the humanist groups are all there. Nothing I'm kildare that I know of.

Pretty sure I've seen a mention of Galway on their website, so certainly not all just Dublin.

panda100

paddie9 wrote:

We'll atheist ireland are all based in Dublin even the humanist groups are all there.

Not true. I live in Limerick and we have had Atheists in the pub and atheist coffee mornings. Also did a few information tables last year. Mid-west humanists are also very active here. There is life outside the pale you know.

paddie9

But nothing in kildare?

Sam Kade

What exactly does an atheist group do?

paddie9

Sam Kade wrote: »

What exactly does an atheist group do?

I suppose anything you want. Talks, support. Action on social policy.

Samuel T. Cogley

Can we gather together, sing some songs and talk about our general love for our fellow man, so long as they fit within our defined little boxes? :pac:

Perhaps a Philosophy group might be something akin to what you're looking for?

endacl

Sam Kade wrote: »

What exactly does an atheist group do?

Sit about in a room together, not collecting stamps, I suppose?

J C

Libertarian Kant wrote: »

Can we gather together, sing some songs and talk about our general love for our fellow man, so long as they fit within our defined little boxes? :pac:

... and the ones who don't ???:D

Libertarian Kant wrote: »

Perhaps a Philosophy group might be something akin to what you're looking for?

Human instinct is to gather together with people of like mind on fundamental issues.
Churches do it ... and now its no surprise that Atheists are also doing it.

Best wishes BTW with setting up a new Atheist Group in Kildare (if one doesn't exist there already) ...
... and any time you would like a philosophical challenge to you worldview ... I'm sure there is a friendly Christian neighbour who would be happy to talk with your new group.

... 'hands across the border' ... and all that

Samuel T. Cogley

I take your point but Atheism is the absence of an issue in my view, so it's really an anti-region group when we start getting together for no other purpose.

J C

Libertarian Kant wrote: »

I take your point but Atheism is the absence of an issue in my view, so it's really an anti-region group when we start getting together for no other purpose.

Far be it for me to tell a group of Atheists what to do
... but I think that you would be 'underselling' yourseves, if all you did was set up an anti-religion group ... some religious groups are quite good at that already !!!:)
Why not be positive and give each other personal and emotional support, for example? ... or discuss positive things about Atheism ... rather than only trying to find the negative in other people and their views?

This world can be tough and lonely sometimes ... and a little bit of Human concern and friendship, such as might be found in an Atheist Group, can go a long way ... doubly so, I would imagine, for an Atheist, who doesn't have a belief in God to provide him/her with some (external) consolation, when things go wrong.

Samuel T. Cogley

To an atheist - in my view at least - there would be no reason to gather for such a goal. Emotional support is not required as it's not an active process. Of course one might wish to attend a support group if they or a significant other had, for example cancer, as they would be unable to rely on their faith. Those support groups wouldn't need any religious or atheist basis.

J C

Libertarian Kant wrote: »

To an atheist - in my view at least - there would be no reason to gather for such a goal. Emotional support is not required as it's not an active process. Of course one might wish to attend a support group if they or a significant other had, for example cancer, as they would be unable to rely on their faith. Those support groups wouldn't need any religious or atheist basis.

That's quite true ... I was just thinking out loud ... but, as I'm not an Atheist, I don't really know how you guys actually feel about many things ... including the formation of Atheist Groups.

BTW how come there are growing numbers of Atheists apparently meeting up in Groups if there is no real reason for them to meet, like you say?

Samuel T. Cogley

J C wrote: »

That's quite true ... I was just thinking out loud ... but, as I'm not an Atheist, I don't really know how you guys actually feel about many things ... including the formation of Atheist Groups.

BTW how come there are growing numbers of Atheists apparently meeting up in Groups if there is no real reason for them to meet, like you say?

Perhaps they lack the faith to go it alone? :pac:

Joking aside I can't fathom it myself. I see atheism as a passive process. I don't attend a breathing group but I do attend an eating group, the former I have no difficulty with the latter on the other hand...

Perhaps these groups follow a more Hitchensesque approach and feel that they need to rail against religion as it's dangerous and pervasive in society?

I can't really wrap my head around a group of atheists meeting for that purpose in of it self? How would it go?

"Still not believing in a all powerful deity there Paddy?"

"No Seamus, pass the sugar would you?"

"Certainly Paddy, here you go. Me Neither"

Surely as soon as the discussion turns to anything else, science, philosophy, swinging - it's a group about that and personally I'd welcome anyone from any religious group to chat about those subjects.

looksee

Have to agree, I don't see what one would talk about in an atheist group. I can see the attraction of a group for social support, but in the case of religious groups the support is secondary to the religious practice. I am not sure how an atheist meeting would go.

If there were issues to discuss specifically I could see that too, but really objecting to the whole church/state thing is more political than atheist. It does sound a bit negative to meet to discuss what you don't believe in.

I did, many years ago, join a women's club that claimed to be secular/ non-religious/ non-denominational. Now in all honesty they were a rather disorganised bunch with good intentions but that was about all. Anyway at my first meeting there it was announced - we are going to have a jumble sale to raise money for the Lourdes Pilgrimage. So I said nuffin, and a couple of weeks later we all gathered to organise this jumble sale. There was a stack of tables and barriers in an adjacent room which were all clearly numbered to go round the room. After some ineffectual faffing no progress was being made and I as a newbie was keeping quiet, when a woman beside me turned to me and said 'we usually have a man to do this for us'. I didn't go again.

Sorry, that last bit is off topic, it just reminded me

Bristolscale7

My previous experience with a similar club involved pints and discussing Bertrand Russell. It is quite enjoyable.

Samuel T. Cogley

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

My previous experience with a similar club involved pints and discussing Bertrand Russell. It is quite enjoyable.

Seems reason enough to do it.

Michael OBrien

paddie9 wrote: »

Don't think there's an atheist group in Kildare. Maybe we could set something up.
Would venue be an issue? Is there many places willing to allow atheist in.

I am part of the Atheist Ireland Cork group, as well as the Kerry group. I am also a member of Cork Humanists.
You might wish to see if a group is already existing, otherwise you can set your own group up.
Most venues should be fine with an atheist group, provided they are not heavily religious. You could start by meeting in a pub and decide to expand from there.

As to what the meetings are about, well that is up to you. A lot of people mix up a group about atheism with a group OF atheists and pretend since atheism is a neutral stance on one issue, there is nothing to meet up about. But atheists are human beings first, with lots of additional viewpoints, ambitions, worries and interests.

I suggest googling 'kildare atheists', 'kildare humanists', 'kildare sceptics', 'kildare freethinkers', that kind of thing. Also check Meetup app for possible groups. Also philosophy groups might also be of interest.

Michael Nugent

Paddie,

Atheist Ireland has several local groups around the country.

They can have social events including monthly lunches, host public information tables about atheism and secularism, host debates, and lobby politicians on secular issues.

If you contact our Regional Officer, Ashling O'Brien, at regional at atheist dot ie, she will be able to put you in touch with local Atheist Ireland members or help you to set up a group yourself.

Michael Nugent

Also, it is amusing to see a discussion, on an atheist discussion forum, about atheists having nothing to discuss

Samuel T. Cogley

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Also, it is amusing to see a discussion, on an atheist discussion forum, about atheists having nothing to discuss

Of course they'd have something to discuss, I just can't see how you can base a discussion purely around the absence of something. Perhaps you could give us an example of topics discussed and how they're exclusively limited to atheists, or even just peculiarly relevant.

Michael Nugent

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Of course they'd have something to discuss, I just can't see how you can base a discussion purely around the absence of something.

To suggest that all there is to discuss about atheism is the absence of something runs counter to all of the evidence of reality.

There are literally thousands of books written about atheism. There are countless atheist groups around the world, many of which also work internationally through Atheist Alliance International. There are countless atheist websites and discussion forums, including this one.

None of that would be happening if, as you suggest, all there is to discuss about atheism is the absence of something.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Perhaps you could give us an example of topics discussed and how they're exclusively limited to atheists, or even just peculiarly relevant.

"Exclusively limited to atheists" would be a strange restriction for an atheist group to place upon itself. Indeed, we have an alliance on secular education with the Evangelical Alliance of Ireland and the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community of Ireland.

I'm not sure what you mean by "peculiarly relevant to atheists." Can you clarify? Whatever you mean by it, did you apply the same criteria to your decision to join this Atheism and Agnosticism discussion forum?

For examples of what we do, why not come along to one of our events?

You can find details on our websites:

http://atheist.ie

http://teachdontpreach.ie

Samuel T. Cogley

A very quick glance at those websites seem to be anti-religion (in regards to it interfering with the state) and promoting pluralism. All laudable goals, but not limited to atheism. There's a huge amount to discuss surrounding atheism but almost nothing to discuss about atheism in of itself.

Atheism, to me, is not a end it's a gateway to science, philosophy, ethics and morality unhindered by anyone else's evangelism. That's not to say I'm not open to being taught Philosophy or Jurisprudence, I was (a tiny, tiny amount) but that didn't necessarily need to be by nor was it by an atheist.

Bristolscale7

Sam, I think you're straw manning. First, atheists are very different from each other. Unlike Christians we don't all share a core hypocrisy. Some atheists are more anti-clerical than anything else; others gravitate toward cosmology and such. As Michael points out, there's no atheist group that would exclude anyone attending. As I said previously, and forgive for generalizing based on my experience, but most atheists gatherings are social or philosophical--like a book club. Muslims, Christians, or whomever could come along but expect to be politely called out on their bullsh1t.

TheQuietFella

Sam Kade wrote: »

What exactly does an atheist group do?

They talk about God or probably more to the point the absence of a God! :eek:

Samuel T. Cogley

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Sam, I think you're straw manning. First, atheists are very different from each other. Unlike Christians we don't all share a core hypocrisy. Some atheists are more anti-clerical than anything else; others gravitate toward cosmology and such. As Michael points out, there's no atheist group that would exclude anyone attending. As I said previously, and forgive for generalizing based on my experience, but most atheists gatherings are social or philosophical--like a book club. Muslims, Christians, or whomever could come along but expect to be politely called out on their bullsh1t.

You're kinda making my point.

They're something else other than a discussion on atheism. I don't really go in for these arguments about how the argument is being made, it doesn't really matter to me what people do - if they want to call it an atheist group fair enough, it would put me off attending tbh. A philosophy group though, in a pub... happy days.

looksee

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Of course they'd have something to discuss, I just can't see how you can base a discussion purely around the absence of something. Perhaps you could give us an example of topics discussed and how they're exclusively limited to atheists, or even just peculiarly relevant.

I think this is a reasonable question and I too would be interested in the answer. Michael's reply did not answer it.

Bristolscale7

Who said anything was exclusively limited to atheists? You're trying to parody atheists.

donkeykong5

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Who said anything was exclusively limited to atheists? You're trying to parody atheists.

Surely you mean atheists are trying to parody themselves ?

Bristolscale7

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Surely you mean atheists are trying to parody themselves ?

How? By going on grindr for gay sex while taking a vow of celibacy?

Samuel T. Cogley

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

You're trying to parody atheists.

TBH (And sorry if this sounds uncivil) posts like this actually annoy me. I'm not trying to parody anyone, and frankly I find the whole 'don't take the piss out of my beliefs argument' to be annoying from God bothers but insane from atheists.

The point I'm making, several times now, is in my view as soon as an atheism groups starts talking about something that isn't atheism it's no longer specifically an atheism group. If it's not limited to atheists (as it rightly shouldn't be) it's not even a group of atheists talking about philosophy anymore!

Atheism to ME is the absence of belief and therefore doesn't require any maintenance or discussion. Fair enough it differs to other people, I just can't wrap my head around how, but each to their own.

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Who said anything was exclusively limited to atheists?

You're missing the point. No one said anything was limited to atheists. I'm asking how atheism as a limited topic can be discussed in a vacuum.

Bristolscale7

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

You're missing the point. No one said anything was limited to atheists. I'm asking how atheism as a limited topic can be discussed in a vacuum.

Ah, so you're onto the whole semantic bullsh1t: "limited topic", "vacuum" --you're just pulling this out of your UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE DELETED

Samuel T. Cogley

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Ah, so you're onto the whole semantic bullsh1t: "limited topic", "vacuum" --you're just pulling this out of your ass.

LOL, I see my worries about incivility were unwarranted.

What's got you so worked up? I'm genuinely curious. Has it escaped you I'm an atheist just one who doesn't get evangelical atheists? I actually do and generally believe that too a point they are a force for good, society should not be governed by God/Gods and works of literary fiction but I just don't think that's an atheism group.

I never said I wasn't into semantics, just not one step removed arguments about arguments. I'm attempting to rephrase my point so it's understood as others with the opposing view point have tried to do to help me understand.

Bristolscale7

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

LOL, I see my worries about incivility were unwarranted.

What's got you so worked up? I'm genuinely curious. Has it escaped you I'm an atheist just one who doesn't get evangelical atheists? I actually do and generally believe that too a point they are a force for good, society should not be governed by God/Gods and works of literary fiction but I just don;t think that's an atheism group.

What's got me worked up is your feigned thickness. You're clearly over-estimating the strength of identity politics.

Hotblack Desiato

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

A very quick glance at those websites seem to be anti-religion (in regards to it interfering with the state) and promoting pluralism.

There is nothing whatsoever anti-religion about pluralism, secularism, and separation of church and state.

Render unto Caesar, and all that.

Samuel T. Cogley

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

There is nothing whatsoever anti-religion about pluralism, secularism, and separation of church and state.

Render unto Caesar, and all that.

I completely agree. They're not about atheism either though. They're perfectly sensible policies anyone can get behind.

Samuel T. Cogley

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

What's got me worked up is your feigned thickness. You're clearly over-estimating the strength of identity politics.

What does that even mean?

BTW I really am as thick as I appear. That said it's unfortunate that my beliefs (or lack there of) should have any emotional effect on you, that does seem to parody the situation to be fair.

Bristolscale7

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

What does that even mean?

What do you want me to explain? "Feigned thickness"? It's like the reverse of the Socratic method. But if I understand your issue, it's simply a question of branding.

Samuel T. Cogley

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

What do you want me to explain? "Feigned thickness"? It's like the reverse of the Socratic method. But if I understand your issue, it's simply a question of branding.

Perhaps you'd go back up and answer some of the questions posed? Or not I don't really mind. I'm happy with my own beliefs and delighted when people have a reason to get together.

I am perhaps a little insensitive, I wear my heart on my sleeve and don't care what random people think, others maybe not so much, so if I've caused anyone offense, apologies.

Bristolscale7

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Perhaps you'd go back up and answer some of the questions posed? Or not I don't really mind. I'm happy with my own beliefs and delighted when people have a reason to get together.

I am perhaps a little insensitive, I wear my heart on my sleeve and don't care what random people think, others maybe not so much, so if I've caused anyone offense, apologies.

But your questions were specious to such a degree that they provoked accusations of feigned thickness. If a group of people get together for pints and talk about Bertrand Russell that's fine--call it a skeptics group club. But if it's called atheist group then they all have to get tribal tattoos?

Michael Nugent

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

A very quick glance at those websites seem to be anti-religion (in regards to it interfering with the state) and promoting pluralism. All laudable goals, but not limited to atheism.

Well, your quick glance was misleading. That may be our fault. I'll bring that up at our next committee meeting. But even if it was the case, your criteria of "limited to atheism" is not one that we share.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

There's a huge amount to discuss surrounding atheism but almost nothing to discuss about atheism in of itself.

Again, that is simply not what the evidence of reality suggests. There is indeed a huge amount to discuss, and that has been discussed, and that continues to be discussed, about atheism in itself. That is the case whether you use your narrow definition of what "atheism itself" is, or any of the wider definitions that many other atheists use.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Atheism, to me, is not an end it's a gateway to science, philosophy, ethics and morality unhindered by anyone else's evangelism. That's not to say I'm not open to being taught Philosophy or Jurisprudence, I was (a tiny, tiny amount) but that didn't necessarily need to be by nor was it by an atheist.

Again, you are conflating your personal beliefs about atheism (which are of course legitimate) with the idea that atheists should only form groups around what *you* believe about atheism. And again, can I ask, why have you joined a discussion forum about atheism and agnosticism if that is your view?

Samuel T. Cogley

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

But your questions were specious to such a degree that they provoked accusations of feigned thickness. If a group of people get together for pints and talk about Bertrand Russell that's fine--call it a skeptics group club. But if it's called atheist group then they all have to get tribal tattoos?

I'm sorry I just don't know what you're trying to get at tbh.

Yes a 'skeptics group club' would probably be a better name for it. Not sure what tattoos has to do with anything.

Samuel T. Cogley

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Well, your quick glance was misleading. That may be our fault. I'll bring that up at our next committee meeting. But even if it was the case, your criteria of "limited to atheism" is not one that we share.

It wasn't a criticism and to be fair they seemed to be laudable goals. Again it was a very quick look. Try not to read into it too much when I use the term anti-religious, I'm not suggesting you're doing anything but promoting reasonable secular policies.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Again, that is simply not what the evidence of reality suggests. There is indeed a huge amount to discuss, and that has been discussed, and that continues to be discussed, about atheism in itself. That is the case whether you use your narrow definition of what "atheism itself" is, or any of the wider definitions that many other atheists use.

That's entirely reasonable it's simply not my definition.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Again, you are conflating your personal beliefs about atheism (which are of course legitimate) with the idea that atheists should only form groups around what *you* believe about atheism. And again, can I ask, why have you joined a discussion forum about atheism and agnosticism if that is your view?

I didn't join the forum per se, I think I just saw this thread on trending or something late at night and it tickled me a bit. Hence the above apology which is genuine, I wasn't intending to cause offense. I do however find the discussions around atheism very interesting but as I say they're not specifically about atheism in my view.

Samuel T. Cogley

I am not following the forum, let's see if it changes me

Edit: Should have read NOW following...

Michael Nugent

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I didn't join the forum per se, I think I just saw this thread on trending or something late at night and it tickled me a bit. Hence the above apology which is genuine, I wasn't intending to cause offense. I do however find the discussions around atheism very interesting but as I say they're not specifically about atheism in my view.

Okay, that's fair enough and there's no need to apologise.

But even with the narrowest definition of atheism, which is (however you specifically define it) related to whether or not you believe that gods exist, there is a lifetime of discussion to be had about even that specific topic.

As well as our social and political events, we regularly host and take part in debates and discussions about whether there is a god, including with fellow atheists, Christians, Muslims, members of other religions, and scientists and philosophers whose beliefs about gods we didn't ask.

Samuel T. Cogley

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Okay, that's fair enough and there's no need to apologise.

But even with the narrowest definition of atheism, which is (however you specifically define it) related to whether or not you believe that gods exist, there is a lifetime of discussion to be had about even that specific topic.

As well as our social and political events, we regularly host and take part in debates and discussions about whether there is a god, including with fellow atheists, Christians, Muslims, members of other religions, and scientists and philosophers whose beliefs about gods we didn't ask.

Well there is as to be fair I did come here on a jolly. I'm still not convinced your discussions don't fall into the realm of something else though. The very absence of belief for me does not require any discussion. Perhaps I'm not being very imaginative and perhaps I'll see some topics and have an ' a ha' moment, I'll try and think of some myself also.

donkeykong5

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Surely you mean atheists are trying to parody themselves ?

How? By going on grindr for gay sex while taking a vow of celibacy?

Wow. You're quick off the mark. What's up with you. 2 trainees in maynooth don't represent the whole bloody priesthood. What about all the aging happy married men with wives an families hanging round the George. ?

uck51js9zml2yt

Michael OBrien wrote: »

I am part of the Atheist Ireland Cork group, as well as the Kerry group. I am also a member of Cork Humanists.
You might wish to see if a group is already existing, otherwise you can set your own group up.
Most venues should be fine with an atheist group, provided they are not heavily religious. You could start by meeting in a pub and decide to expand from there.

.

How can an atheist group be heavily religious.. I thought you were all anti religious!
It's a shame to see that people equate Christianity with "the church" and priests, especially when the Church existed before they came on the scene and still exists outside of them.

JC if you want some company in an atheist meeting id be happy to go along to provide a non religious outlook on Christianity.ive 30 years experience of being against religion:)

Samuel T. Cogley

Briana Shrilling Skepticism wrote: »

How can an atheist group be heavily religious.. I thought you were all anti religious!
It's a shame to see that people equate Christianity with "the church" and priests, especially when the Church existed before they came on the scene and still exists outside of them.

JC if you want some company in an atheist meeting id be happy to go along to provide a non religious outlook on Christianity.ive 30 years experience of being against religion:)

I thought me meant the venue tbh.