Where are the Atheists?

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

That isn't the point of the census question.

If you want to try and get the question changed go ahead, but while it is as it is people should answer it accurately. Atheism is not a religion, it does not require resources from the State, nor is it a organised movement or grouping.

I don't even particularly want to be counted with the rest of you as if we are a unified group.

It gives the wrong impression of what atheism actually is. I feel no affinity towards atheists just because they are atheists. I have no shared views of beliefs with other atheists just because they are atheists. I might have completely different beliefs and view point to another atheist. We might be polar opposites in everything we believe. The idea that we should be grouped together by simply because of what we don't believe is rather a bizarre idea.

There seems to be an underlying assumption that atheists means secularist, or humanist. That is not a safe assumption to make. Secularism or humanism are belief systems, and if there is a box for either of them I would gladly tick them.


Again since atheists as a group don't have views, I don't see the problem with that.

If anyone said that I would point them to the box marked "No Religion", and point out how many people in Ireland do not follow any organized religion.


As a group we don't count, that is the point.

We don't have any unified, or even defined, goals or mission or view point.

Again it is important to distinguish between atheism and something like secularism or humanism.


The problem with answering "atheist" is that it does give the impression that we are actually a unified group with some form of shared belief system.

And this idea is not only incorrect it is dangerous because it leads to theists grouping us together (such as "Look what the atheist Stalin did! Look what the atheist Pol Pop did!")

Good, they should discount "us"

By your own lights, then, you should not endeavour to persuade anyone else to share your opinion on this matter?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

The Atheist wrote:

The way I see it, writing "atheist", "agnostic", "humanist" etc. on the form is just making a small statement that you feel the no-religion bracket is too vague to mean anything.

Ultimately I think the problem is that people here want the question to mean something else.

You guys want a want to count how many atheists are in the country. Nothing wrong with that. But this question on the census form is not the correct place to do that.

If any of you feel that strongly about it then try and get the question changed. But expect the response that the government doesn't actually care how many atheists there are since that information is largely useless, and therefore the census is probably not the best place for the question on atheism.

A far more useful number would be how many secularists are in the country, but that is probably too complicated an issue for the census and is better handled by the ballet box.

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

By your own lights, then, you should not endeavour to persuade anyone else to share your opinion on this matter?

cordially,
Scofflaw

What is my opinion on this matter? That there is no God?

If I did persuade someone that there is not God, causing them to reject their theists belief system, the next question I would ask them is "Ok, so what do you believe now"

Ultimately it is what someone believes that is important, that defines them, not what they don't believe.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

You seem to be working under the assumption that when the CSO, the government, or the county councils read "No Religion" they go "Oh, well obviously those guys are just kidding themselves"

Do you have anything to actually support that idea?

I would be far more worried by these seeming idiotic State planners going "Ok, we have a couple of thousand atheists, we better make an atheist school ... what do atheist believe in again?"

I don't think there's anything to support either your view or mine, but I believe the normal practice for a civil servant is to find out. At the moment I tend to agree that they will likely do this by contacting, say, the humanists, simply because they have an organisation and a phone number. I am willing to cross that bridge when I come to it, though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

I don't think there's anything to support either your view or mine, but I believe the normal practice for a civil servant is to find out. At the moment I tend to agree that they will likely do this by contacting, say, the humanists, simply because they have an organisation and a phone number. I am willing to cross that bridge when I come to it, though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I would also be worried about "atheist" being lumped in with "Other religion"

While some have assured me on this forum that the CSO should know that "atheism" falls under no religion, that is ultimately an assumption based on good faith that the CSO will know, and always know, to do this.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Ultimately I think the problem is that people here want the question to mean something else.

You guys want a want to count how many atheists are in the country. Nothing wrong with that. But this question on the census form is not the correct place to do that.

If any of you feel that strongly about it then try and get the question changed. But expect the response that the government doesn't actually care how many atheists there are since that information is largely useless, and therefore the census is probably not the best place for the question on atheism.

The census is a very good place for it, because:

a. the census is already distributed to every household
b. it's very very easy to put that answer on it
c. putting "atheist" doesn't reduce the value of the census, but increases it

Wicknight wrote:

A far more useful number would be how many secularists are in the country, but that is probably too complicated an issue for the census and is better handled by the ballet box.

Also, secularism isn't a religion either, nor is it even a religious position (as atheism is), plus there are too many signals mixed together in elections.

Wicknight wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

By your own lights, then, you should not endeavour to persuade anyone else to share your opinion on this matter?

What is my opinion on this matter? That there is no God?

No, your opinion that people shouldn't write "atheist" under other. If you don't want to be counted because you don't feel that there's a group, or that you have anything in common with other atheists, why are you trying so hard to persuade them to adopt one position or other on the census?

amused,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

I would also be worried about "atheist" being lumped in with "Other religion"

While some have assured me on this forum that the CSO should know that "atheism" falls under no religion, that is ultimately an assumption based on good faith that the CSO will know, and always know, to do this.

Hmm. Currently, you're simply putting yourself down as 'No organised religion', which is not terrifically different. If you differentiate yourself as 'atheist', then at least the process of the CSO finding out what that means has to start - possibly resulting in a change to the question. Otherwise, you're in with the New-Agers, dissident theists, etc, all who are believers but don't subscribe to any particular organisation.

I suppose it comes down to a question of whether you think the 'loner' aspect is more important than the 'non-believer' aspect.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

The census is a very good place for it, because:

Not as the census stands. "Atheism" is not a religion. To have it counted you need to tick "Other Religion" write in atheism and then hope that who ever is counting your census realises that what you actually mean and doesn't count your tick as an actual religious preference.

If this has to be in the census the way to do it would to have a box under the category of "No Religion", so a person can explain exactly what type of non-religious person they are.

But again I do see this as being particularly necessary or useless.

No Religion sums it up quite nicely in my opinion. I'm not quite sure what extra value knowing someone who has no religion is an atheist brings to the discussion.

The idea that it would bring extra value seems to be based on the assumption that the CSO assume everyone who ticks "No Religion" actually does have some secret religious leaning and is therefore counted as a religious person. I'm not quite sure why anyone would believe that.

Scofflaw wrote:

No, your opinion that people shouldn't write "atheist" under other. If you don't want to be counted because you don't feel that there's a group, or that you have anything in common with other atheists, why are you trying so hard to persuade them to adopt one position or other on the census?

I would try and persuade anyone, theist or atheist or neither, to fill out the state census properly and correctly.

Atheism isn't a religion.

It is incorrect and misleading to tick "Other" and write in "Atheism" under the religion section.

Not only does it incorrectly group atheism as a form of religion, it incorrectly classifies atheism as an organised group as well.

You could just as easily put "Atheist" down under nationality and hope that the CSO figure that one out as well.

I appreciate that you wish atheists to be counted but the simple fact of the matter is that the census in its current form does not provide a correct way to do this, and until it does the census should be filled out correctly and accurately.

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Hmm. Currently, you're simply putting yourself down as 'No organised religion', which is not terrifically different. If you differentiate yourself as 'atheist', then at least the process of the CSO finding out what that means has to start

But it doesn't mean anything. What would the state do differently with this information? Build an atheist rather than non-religion school? What is the difference?

Scofflaw wrote:

Otherwise, you're in with the New-Agers, dissident theists, etc, all who are believers but don't subscribe to any particular organisation.

I see no problem with that.

The state will know no more about what I believe or want from "atheist" than they will from "no religion"

I cannot imagine anything that would be classified an "atheist" facility that wouldn't be better classified as an non-religious facility. I would much rather send my future children to a non-religious school than to an atheist school. I don't even know what an atheist school would be?

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

I would try and persuade anyone, theist or atheist or neither, to fill out the state census properly and correctly.

Atheism isn't a religion.

It is incorrect and misleading to tick "Other" and write in "Atheism" under the religion section.

Not only does it incorrectly group atheism as a form of religion, it incorrectly classifies atheism as an organised group as well.

You could just as easily put "Atheist" down under nationality and hope that the CSO figure that one out as well.

I appreciate that you wish atheists to be counted but the simple fact of the matter is that the census in its current form does not provide a correct way to do this, and until it does the census should be filled out correctly and accurately.

Hmm - that's "correctly and accurately" according to you though. I consider Atheism a religious position, and therefore, for me, it is correct to put it down under the Religion section of the census. The description "Other Religion" is not accurate, but "Atheist" is still more accurate than "No Religion", if for no other reason than that more information is almost invariably more accurate than less.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Wicknight wrote:

I appreciate that you wish atheists to be counted but the simple fact of the matter is that the census in its current form does not provide a correct way to do this, and until it does the census should be filled out correctly and accurately.

That sounds like a sound bite from a government spokesperson!

FWIW I wouldn't have put down atheist in 2006 had I not seen the results of 2002 which actually listed all the things that people wrote or ticked on that form. That at least showed that one's small rebellion was going to be counted, and appear in the results.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

But it doesn't mean anything. What would the state do differently with this information? Build an atheist rather than non-religion school? What is the difference?

I see no problem with that.

The state will know no more about what I believe or want from "atheist" than they will from "no religion"

I cannot imagine anything that would be classified an "atheist" facility that wouldn't be better classified as an non-religious facility. I would much rather send my future children to a non-religious school than to an atheist school. I don't even know what an atheist school would be?

Yes, I've seen you having this argument with theists. You are correct, I always feel, in that there is no 'system of belief', no doctrine or doxology, but I think beyond that one is over-egging the pudding to claim that atheists share no common ground. Would this be a reasonable summary?

We may not share a common belief or common ideology, but there is certainly common ground. Atheists are in general secularist, pro-scientific, members of the "reality-based community". We favour reason over emotion or blind faith, evidence over authority - usually, this is what leads us to reject God, rather than simply accepting the authority of tradition or peers (in turn, this tends to go with the rejection of an "atheist group identity").

All of that leads to a position where we can share no ideologies because we should* have no ideologies - but that very lack of ideology is, again, a common position, because it is not formed by ignorance or apathy but by positive rejection.

That the theist mistakes this reasoned rejection of belief and ideology for a doctrine antithetical to their own should be irrelevant to us - we should not try to define ourselves as undefinable merely to reprove their error. Nor should our rejection of authority prevent us from co-operating.

cordially,
Scofflaw

*this is a predictive should, rather than a normative should

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Hmm - that's "correctly and accurately" according to you though. I consider Atheism a religious position, and therefore, for me, it is correct to put it down under the Religion section of the census.

Fair enough. I would point out that the question on the 2006 census form is

"What is your religion?"

With the 6th option being -

"Other, write in your RELIGION"
[capitalised by CSO]

I do not consider atheism a form of "religion" under any commonly held definition of the word, and I don't think you do either. So I believe that writing "atheism" down under option 6 is incorrectly filling out the form, particularly when option 7 is

No Religion

You are asked quite directly what is your religion. If you do not subscribe to any religion the correct answer, the only answer, is no religion.

Your personal feelings of what the question should be, what it should cover or what you wish it to cover, have little bearing on what the census actually asks you.

But of course if you are free to write what ever you wish on the form

Scofflaw wrote:

The description "Other Religion" is not accurate, but "Atheist" is still more accurate than "No Religion", if for no other reason than that more information is almost invariably more accurate than less.

In my view, for an atheist such as myself who does not believe or follow any religion the only accurate answer to the question is "No Religion", if one accepts that atheism itself is not a religion.

If you do not follow a religion, you tick the box that says "no religion" Being an atheist is actually irrelevant to that, as you point out.

If you do follow a religion you tick either one of the religions listed or you tick other and write in your religion.

Why you don't follow any religion is not covered by the question, probably because the government doesn't care (and many would argue it is none of their business).

I appreciate that you and others here wish it was actually covered by the question, but the simple fact of the matter is that it isn't. That ultimately is a different issue involving a re-writing of the question to include an option to state why you do not follow any religion or what your particular stance or feeling towards religion is, ie I'm an atheist and I don't believe in any god nor do I follow any religion.

But it could be argued that such information is irrelevant from the governments point of view when it comes to State planning, in the same way that the government don't need to know how many people hate football, they only need to know how many like football and want more football parks.

Scofflaw wrote:

but I think beyond that one is over-egging the pudding to claim that atheists share no common ground. Would this be a reasonable summary?

I'm not saying that atheists cannot share common ground. But assumptions that they will based solely on shared rejection of supernatural deities are neither accurate nor helpful.

At the end of the day knowing that someone is an atheist tells me nothing about what they actually believe.

I can make assumptions that they will have come to the status of atheist in a similar fashion that I have, and that because of this they will share a similar appreciation for concepts and ideologies such as humanism and the principles of liberal secularism.

But having met many an atheist with no appreciation for humanism nor liberal secularism I long ago stopped relying on these assumptions when meeting atheists. Now I prefer to find out what a person actually believes, or at least claims to believe, before I classify them with belonging to any particular ideology.

Scofflaw wrote:

We may not share a common belief or common ideology, but there is certainly common ground. Atheists are in general secularist, pro-scientific, members of the "reality-based community".

Well at the end of the day that is an assumption that can turn out to be incorrect (at least in my experience). While it may be a general rule of thumb it is by no means a requirement to be classified an atheist. As such people who share none of those ideologies above can still be considered as much atheists as you or I. I no more wish to group them with myself than I wish to exclude them or state that they aren't really atheists because they share none of those traits. At the end of the day if you do not believe in gods or a particular theism you are an atheists. That is all that is required for the classification. Why you don't is a different issue.

Scofflaw wrote:

We favour reason over emotion or blind faith, evidence over authority

We can favour reason over emotion, evidence over authority. But again none of these traits are a requirement for being an atheist, nor can one assume that an atheist will necessarily share these traits.

Using the theists favourite example, there were plenty of atheists in for example the old Soviet States who did neither of the above, who were ruled by both emotion and authority, often happily so. They were atheists because they rejected the concept of an authority from a deity but they simply replaced it with the concept of the authority from the State, and followed this authority not out of reason but out of emotion.

I have no desire to be grouped with these atheists at all, nor do I see any reason why such a grouping under the banner "atheist" is necessary. We share nothing in common except a shared rejection of arcane religious superstition. We are both "atheist" but that tells you nothing about what either of us actually believe, beliefs that are poles apart.

The USSR example is an extreme example (one wonders if Goodwin's law is soon to be updated with the Nazi's replaced with Stalin in any discussion involving religion vs atheism), but the principle holds equally well for any atheists who's beliefs are either unknown to me or opposed to my own.

If I met an atheist who I do share beliefs with I have no issue aligning myself with them or being grouped with them. But this will be under the banner of our shared beliefs, not atheism.

Zombrex

The Atheist wrote:

That sounds like a sound bite from a government spokesperson!

I will choose to take that as a complement

The Atheist wrote:

That at least showed that one's small rebellion was going to be counted, and appear in the results.

When did being an atheist, or in deed the Irish census, become about rebellion? What exactly are you guys rebellion from?

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Fair enough. I would point out that the question on the 2006 census form is

"What is your religion?"

With the 6th option being -

"Other, write in your RELIGION"
[capitalised by CSO]

I do not consider atheism a form of "religion" under any commonly held definition of the word, and I don't think you do either. So I believe that writing "atheism" down under option 6 is incorrectly filling out the form, particularly when option 7 is

No Religion

You are asked quite directly what is your religion. If you do not subscribe to any religion the correct answer, the only answer, is no religion.

Your personal feelings of what the question should be, what it should cover or what you wish it to cover, have little bearing on what the census actually asks you.

But of course if you are free to write what ever you wish on the form

Well, all of the above is certainly correct. It is, as I said, only that I find it more useful to err on the side of additional detail, rather than standing on either the point of principle or the "wishes" of the CSO.

Wicknight wrote:

In my view, for an atheist such as myself who does not believe or follow any religion the only accurate answer to the question is "No Religion", if one accepts that atheism itself is not a religion.

If you do not follow a religion, you tick the box that says "no religion" Being an atheist is actually irrelevant to that, as you point out.

If you do follow a religion you tick either one of the religions listed or you tick other and write in your religion.

Hmm. In fact, I write "Atheist", not "Atheism", to indicate what I am, rather than what religion I follow.

Wicknight wrote:

Why you don't follow any religion is not covered by the question, probably because the government doesn't care (and many would argue it is none of their business).

I appreciate that you and others here wish it was actually covered by the question, but the simple fact of the matter is that it isn't. That ultimately is a different issue involving a re-writing of the question to include an option to state why you do not follow any religion or what your particular stance or feeling towards religion is, ie I'm an atheist and I don't believe in any god nor do I follow any religion.

I see no need to rewrite the question, because the CSO faithfully records the answer I give (which is also The Atheist's point).

You could say, of course, that I am "misusing a government form for my own purposes", but you'd have to appreciate that would just make me laugh...

Wicknight wrote:

But it could be argued that such information is irrelevant from the governments point of view when it comes to State planning, in the same way that the government don't need to know how many people hate football, they only need to know how many like football and want more football parks.

Well, yes, but then I don't really care what the Government wants here...

Wicknight wrote:

I'm not saying that atheists cannot share common ground. But assumptions that they will based solely on shared rejection of supernatural deities are neither accurate nor helpful.

At the end of the day knowing that someone is an atheist tells me nothing about what they actually believe.

In general that is certainly true.

Wicknight wrote:

I can make assumptions that they will have come to the status of atheist in a similar fashion that I have, and that because of this they will share a similar appreciation for concepts and ideologies such as humanism and the principles of liberal secularism.

But having met many an atheist with no appreciation for humanism nor liberal secularism I long ago stopped relying on these assumptions when meeting atheists. Now I prefer to find out what a person actually believes, or at least claims to believe, before I classify them with belonging to any particular ideology.

Sure. Did I mention "liberal secularism" as part of the common ground? I don't think I did.

Wicknight wrote:

Well at the end of the day that is an assumption that can turn out to be incorrect (at least in my experience). While it may be a general rule of thumb it is by no means a requirement to be classified an atheist. As such people who share none of those ideologies above can still be considered as much atheists as you or I.

It's true of most of the atheists I would be interested in - what one might call 'rational atheists', who have come to reject God through reason, based on lack of evidence.

Wicknight wrote:

I no more wish to group them with myself than I wish to exclude them or state that they aren't really atheists because they share none of those traits. At the end of the day if you do not believe in gods or a particular theism you are an atheists. That is all that is required for the classification. Why you don't is a different issue.

Again, true, but irrelevant.

Wicknight wrote:

We can favour reason over emotion, evidence over authority. But again none of these traits are a requirement for being an atheist, nor can one assume that an atheist will necessarily share these traits.

In this country, most of those who self-identify as atheists will share such characteristics. That some don't is neither here nor there, because I am not trying to set up a rule, but only observe common characteristics (I can feel your suspicion...).

Wicknight wrote:

Using the theists favourite example, there were plenty of atheists in for example the old Soviet States who did neither of the above, who were ruled by both emotion and authority, often happily so. They were atheists because they rejected the concept of an authority from a deity but they simply replaced it with the concept of the authority from the State, and followed this authority not out of reason but out of emotion.

I have no desire to be grouped with these atheists at all, nor do I see any reason why such a grouping under the banner "atheist" is necessary. We share nothing in common except a shared rejection of arcane religious superstition. We are both "atheist" but that tells you nothing about what either of us actually believe, beliefs that are poles apart.

The USSR example is an extreme example (one wonders if Goodwin's law is soon to be updated with the Nazi's replaced with Stalin in any discussion involving religion vs atheism), but the principle holds equally well for any atheists who's beliefs are either unknown to me or opposed to my own.

If I met an atheist who I do share beliefs with I have no issue aligning myself with them or being grouped with them. But this will be under the banner of our shared beliefs, not atheism.

Hmm. Yes, but I'm not actually suggesting you rally under a banner and march on the GPO, you see. I'm simply suggesting that since you do identify yourself as an atheist, you anonymously put that self-identification somewhere visible, so that others may be heartened by it. It's not a very big step, and it certainly doesn't commit you to anything, but it is at least a visible one.

More generally, would you agree that atheists don't wish to have religion forced on them?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

I see no need to rewrite the question, because the CSO faithfully records the answer I give (which is also The Atheist's point).

You could say, of course, that I am "misusing a government form for my own purposes", but you'd have to appreciate that would just make me laugh...

LOL

Well I suppose that is where we fundamentally differ. I don't feel the census should be used in this fashion, you don't mind it being used in this fashion (in fact you seem to support it more if this is the incorrect way to use the census). Since we aren't starting from the same initial positions over what the census should be used for debating over the correct or incorrect way to use the census is probably interesting but futile.

Scofflaw wrote:

Sure. Did I mention "liberal secularism" as part of the common ground? I don't think I did.

No, I did. But this kinda highlights my point. If we differ in what we assume the common ground of atheism is this would suggest that there isn't really a common ground that can be defined properly.

Scofflaw wrote:

It's true of most of the atheists I would be interested in
...
In this country, most of those who self-identify as atheists will share such characteristics.

Ultimately then this only applies to how you yourself view other atheists, since neither the characteristics you are interested in, nor the nationality of the atheist, actually has any bearing on if someone is or is not an atheist.

Scofflaw wrote:

That some don't is neither here nor there, because I am not trying to set up a rule, but only observe common characteristics (I can feel your suspicion...).

If that is the case I fail to see how it relates back the census issue.

I've no issue with people observing what a particular atheist may or may not believe in relation to other atheists. But this is observation after the fact.

Scofflaw wrote:

I'm simply suggesting that since you do identify yourself as an atheist, you anonymously put that self-identification somewhere visible, so that others may be heartened by it.

Again I've no issue with that, but I think the census as it currently stands is not the place to do this. But again, as I said above, that is the fundamental difference in the positions.

Scofflaw wrote:

It's not a very big step, and it certainly doesn't commit you to anything, but it is at least a visible one.

I'm still not following what this would achieve that "No religion" doesn't

Scofflaw wrote:

More generally, would you agree that atheists don't wish to have religion forced on them?

I would in so far as I think most, atheists or otherwise, don't wish to have religion forced upon them. Most people don't like anything forced upon them, be it religion or a big fat man

I don't think that is a defining characteristic of atheism. I actually know atheists who are big believers in religion as a stabilising force in society and see no problem with with religion having significant influence in society. I strongly disagree and see their view (its a couple) as a form of intellectual snobbery (we are smart enough to be atheists, but the dirty masses need religion to keep them on the straight and narrow), but again that simply demonstrates that I have nothing in common with them when it comes to this area of belief.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

I'm still not following what this would achieve that "No religion" doesn't

It gives at least a minimum estimate of how many atheists there are, for those who are interested. You may not be interested, but I am.

Doing it through the census is the most respectable method, or gives the most respectable figure if you prefer (since, after all, it's not respectable to misuse the census form as I suggest...).

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

It gives at least a minimum estimate of how many atheists there are, for those who are interested. You may not be interested, but I am.

Yes I get that, but I don't understand what that achieves, beyond being mildly interesting, that "No religion" doesn't

Earlier it was hinted at that without this we (as in atheists) would not be counted and this could have knock on negative effects. As far I am concerned I'm counted under the "No Religion" category, which is fine by me. I see no disadvantage to this

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Yes I get that, but I don't understand what that achieves, beyond being mildly interesting, that "No religion" doesn't

Earlier it was hinted at that without this we (as in atheists) would not be counted and this could have knock on negative effects. As far I am concerned I'm counted under the "No Religion" category, which is fine by me. I see no disadvantage to this

Well, that's one issue, but it seems you're more bothered by state planners trying to decide what an atheist school should look like...

Let's say we're talking about a potential atheist (someone who's deciding whether to reject God, but all his/her peers are theists) - or someone who is an atheist, but frequently feels isolated by it, because everyone he/she knows is a theist.

I would say that knowing the number of atheists will be of comfort to that person, and that such a purpose is not served by the "No Religion" category, because it includes far too many non-atheists. Perhaps you disagree?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

I would say that knowing the number of atheists will be of comfort to that person, and that such a purpose is not served by the "No Religion" category, because it includes far too many non-atheists. Perhaps you disagree?

Well I mean its possible. I would feel that this isn't the purpose of the census though and that the negative perception of "atheists" as a group or worse a religion out way this potential benefit. I appreciate thought that you disagree and I can see your logic

Dades

Wicknight wrote:

Most people don't like anything forced upon them, be it religion or a big fat man

LOL

Perhaps writing "atheist" on the census could be equated to posting in the creationism thread. Pointless!

Bexz

Saint Ruth wrote:

Considering the number of atheism that seem to be floating about, isn't it rather surprising only 929 people in the entire country defined themselves as "Atheist"?

I'm sure some of the 186,000 "No Religion" were Atheists (and I'm sure some of them were also non-atheist "I don't believe in organised religion but I believe in something" crowd), but the question is, why don't people tick the "Atheist" box???

http://beyond2020.cso.ie/Census/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=1852

Just because the majority of people are involved in some sort of religious meme, does not imply that they are correct. remember: truth OVER majority, Not majority over truth!!

Beruthiel

Saint Ruth wrote:

I
929 people then wrote "Atheist" in the "Other" box.

I was one of those people who got annoyed at there being no option and wrote atheist beside 'no religion'

lostexpectation

Beruthiel wrote:

I was one of those people who got annoyed at there being no option and wrote atheist beside 'no religion'

as I said before my dad filled us all in atheist so I put in athiest...

I think somebodies been reading David Quinn

Dr Pepper

I'm pretty sure I fall into the "My Mammy filled it out and put me down as a Catholic" category.

As an indicator of the level of religious belief (or lack of) in the country, the whole thing is a farce, woefully inaccurate and not worthy of this long discussion/debate (imo). The reason being that I assume the above category, coupled with the "I don't believe in God or go to mass, but I'll put down Catholic because that's what I was raised as" makes up a very large portion of the population (and I'd love to know what that percentage is! Anybody got any accurate figures?).

(Imo) This has done an extremely irritating disservice to the cause of secularism in the country..

legspin

Wicknight wrote:

I don't even particularly want to be counted with the rest of you as if we are a unified group.

And we all love you too

Wicknight wrote:

It gives the wrong impression of what atheism actually is. I feel no affinity towards atheists just because they are atheists. I have no shared views of beliefs with other atheists just because they are atheists. I might have completely different beliefs and view point to another atheist. We might be polar opposites in everything we believe. The idea that we should be grouped together by simply because of what we don't believe is rather a bizarre idea.

The very fact we don't believe should be enough. As a worldview this is a notable definition in and of itself, and should be treated equal to the occasion of someone declaring themselves as religious.

Wicknight wrote:

There seems to be an underlying assumption that atheists means secularist, or humanist. That is not a safe assumption to make. Secularism or humanism are belief systems, and if there is a box for either of them I would gladly tick them.

Just asking a few questions here.
What underlying assumption?
Please explain your logic there. In what way are these belief systems?

Wicknight wrote:

....As a group we don't count, that is the point......
....Good, they should discount "us"

Why should we not count? Religious persons are damn quick to say they do and thus it is made convenient for them to do so in the census. If the obfuscation did not exist in the census, it would be possible for all dissenting voices to be noted as existing even if we are not heard.

Wicknight wrote:

We don't have any unified, or even defined, goals or mission or view point.

Yes we do. We live life unshackled by religion.
......Or is this just too simple a definition?

Dave!

It's too broad a definition. Being an atheist does not affect the way you live your life, whereas being a member of a religion does. They have to attend church, pray, etc., whereas with atheism, it's just one more thing you don't believe in. Disbelief in Santa Clause does not necessitate any kind of association or union between groups. You just carry on living your life in the unique way in which you wish to.

I'm playing devils advocate slightly, because while I do believe that being an atheist does not mean that you share any other traits or beliefs with other atheists, I do recognise the benefit of association amongst atheists, especially now.

Zombrex

legspin wrote:

And we all love you too

Screw you hippie

legspin wrote:

The very fact we don't believe should be enough.

Enough for what?

legspin wrote:

As a worldview this is a notable definition in and of itself, and should be treated equal to the occasion of someone declaring themselves as religious.

Of course we should be treated equally, everyone should. But that has little to do with the census.

legspin wrote:

Just asking a few questions here.
What underlying assumption?
Please explain your logic there. In what way are these belief systems?

They are belief systems in that they describe/categorise what a person believes. If I believe in the principles of secularism then I'm a secularist. Someone can say "Wicknight is a secularist" and someone else will now know what I believe, at least in relation to the area of discussion.

legspin wrote:

Why should we not count?

Because we have no common beliefs between us. What would such a grouping tell the government we wanted/needed?

legspin wrote:

Religious persons are damn quick to say they do and thus it is made convenient for them to do so in the census. If the obfuscation did not exist in the census, it would be possible for all dissenting voices to be noted as existing even if we are not heard.

And what does that do?

legspin wrote:

Yes we do. We live life unshackled by religion.
......Or is this just too simple a definition?

Well it is an irrelevant definition, since it is neither a goal, mission or common view point. It is meaningless in relation to the census. You might as well ask how many people are happy. In fact that number would probably be far more useful to the government, they would know where to put the psychiatrists