eviltwin wrote: » No organisation is ever going to speak for all its members. When the church speak out on social issues no one would assume they speak for all Catholics. Same with AI.
magicbastarder wrote: » even with that analogy, it's not that applicable. it's a reasonable guess that a catholic is a member of the catholic church. not so with atheists and AI.
silverharp wrote: » I caught a bit of that prog by accident, He didnt make any such claims. He said that people do not need religion to be moral.
smacl wrote: » The thing is though, outside of the likes of AI, atheists are not organised so no one has an atheist mandate. Michael represents a certain atheist viewpoint with a limited mandate from some other atheists, so when an atheist viewpoint is sought by the media he's somewhere between the de facto choice and the only choice. Unless as an Irish atheist I wanted to put the work in to offer an alternative choice, better to go with what's there rather than denying atheism a voice on the basis of disagreement on many of the finer points. As I've said previously, the squabbling between atheists in Ireland is reminiscent of the Peoples front of Judea attacking the Popular Judean People's Front while under Roman occupation. All good fun, and I'll vocally disagree with Micheal et al on the minutiae these forums, but still support him on the major issues as he's the one putting the work in.
Kidchameleon wrote: » In fairness, a huge amount of Catholics would say the church doesnt speak for them. Ssm, contraception the list goes on.
eviltwin wrote: » No organisation is ever going to speak for all its members..
antitheist1 wrote: » I've no problem with some atheists organising as long as they only claim to speak for atheists in their organisation and they make that absolutely clear in all interviews. I am an atheist I don't believe in God, I have very little in common with the god dillusional, constant nit picking, religious bashing, obsessional science worshipping views of atheist Ireland. When this group tries to speak for all atheists by defacto not making it clear that they only speak for atheists in their own organisation this to me is complete hypocrisy e.g an obsession by atheist Ireland against people putting down on the census they are Christians while on the other not making clear the limited mandate they actually have themselves.
antitheist1 wrote: » that's my point I am not a member. Nor are dare I say the vast majority of atheists. And the day atheist Ireland has a majority of atheists in it is the day im signing back up to the catholic church.
silverharp wrote: » People understand. No group in society have the same goals. There were gay people against the last referendum. There are probably travellers out there who get annoyed by pavee point or Irish speakers who don't like the various lobbies. If you vsn get a critical mass of atheists with a different viewpoint setup your own group
Nodin wrote: » Remarkably well thought out and reasoned strategy there.
smacl wrote: » I would suggest that the impression that you get from the media that Michael Nugent speaks for atheism in Ireland actually comes largely from the media and the ever increasing demand of their audiences to better understand how and why to reject religion. If you don't like the job Michael and AI are doing, you need to come up the a viable alternative that meets the demand.
antitheist1 wrote: » Thats a problem I have, thos odea that atheist is about the rejection of religion. Who decided that? I don't regect religion. I just dont believe in god. The job they are doing to represent their members is a fine one im sure. I am not a member don't claim to represent me.
antitheist1 wrote: » atheists are not a group!!! Only those atheists who are in ai are a group. So they should make it clear they only speak for those people.
antitheist1 wrote: » My question is of course rhetorical. I am getting fed up of Micheal Nugent and atheist Ireland claiming to speaking for all atheists. He speaks with such authority about among all other things---what atheism is. Michael I just thought is was just not believing in God? Yet on Marian Finnucan you ascribed among other things a whole moral code to it. Micheal if one want to be an atheist and a moral bastard who are you to tell one that actually one as an atheist has to be a wolly moralist. Please Michael stop speaking for all atheists in Ireland and if future interviews please only claim to speak for atheists in your own organisation.
wp_rathead wrote: » Think antithesit point is An atheist can be a wanker with no morals An atheist can be sound fecker with strong morals But the fact they are an atheist is irrelevant so linking morals with Atheism is unnecessary Could be way off though
smacl wrote: » It is a fair point, and one I would largely agree with. At the same time however, you have a lot of people abandoning the Catholic church over here, to some extent because the morality it preaches is so far out of kilter with acceptable social behaviour in this country. The same sex marriage referendum is one example of this, the abuses by the clergy another. Those leaving the church are looking at alternative models for morality, and this includes secularism. Atheist Ireland apart from anything else also promotes secularism and a certain philosophy, and as such provides value in this context. My principal issue with Atheist Ireland is the name, but its not my organisations it is Michael's and the members, and as such they can call it whatever they want.
2. Aims 2.1. To promote atheism and reason over superstition and supernaturalism. 2.2. To promote an ethical and secular Ireland where the state does not support or fund or give special treatment to any religion.
smacl wrote: » atheists are not organised so no one has an atheist mandate.
