Would you join Atheist Ireland?

Ghost Buster

alex73 wrote: »

Michael, for sure I am not going to compare you to anybody... But in the 1930's we can see how German society evolved towards certain religious symbols.... Whats wrong with the current status quo? I respect your opinion and you respect the religious tradition that is over 1500 years old in Ireland. The English already tried to burn religion out of Ireland and failed.

So by your logic, seeing as the Celts were here for a very very very looooong time doing what ever it was they were doing at New Grange etc(pagan stuff you might say ) then seeing as they had their foot in the door first we should perhaps consider going back to that default setting. After all that was around for more than 1500 years and so must be respected. Imagine our hospitals and schools where the head administrator or principal has his nipples ritually kissed each morning before having a bath in horses blood. Of course he would have to be sacrificed for the future prosperity of the hospital or school every few years.
Oh hang about. What about the people who inhabited Ireland in the pre celtic era? This antiquity of beliefs stuff is tricky.....

ISAW

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Nope, there is no organisation that I agree with 100% of their ideas, ideals or opinions so there is little point in me paying for the privilege of merely sharing a lack of belief in a god and disagreeing on many points regarding what that means or should mean in real life.

I have difficulty with this reason. I am confused and don't mean to be personal but "I don't believe in God either but i could care less about the rest of you who also don't because i probably don't believe in anything you do and would not enjoy your company because not believing in god isnt worth talking about or paying to say in company" . why post here then? Do you see my confusion?

Should one think people should not marry unless they argee 100 per cent on everything?
Should one refuse to vote for fianna Fail or fiae gael or whatever because they don't agree with 100 per cent of their policies?
Maybe i have taken you up wrong and you only mean when you have to pay money to join?
But even then paying money is a minor thing. One might do much more work or things of much more value without pay. People do it in the home and political parties and community groups.
it just seems odd or contradictory not to be involved in things from which one does not derive immediate benefit . also it is a bit like punk rock or anarchism a group of people who dont want to conform to or be in any group.

Or is it only the "no believeing in God" idea that you don't think really matters or should have any bearing? In which case why express that opinion since by expressing it you ascribe value to it? If your own beliefs don't matter then why express them? Why not just stay silent?

Having stated the above many "atheist" groups or movements are IMO anti theist groups.

ISAW

strobe wrote: »

I really can't understand why anyone would insist on some teacher who, most of the time, has no theological training or knowlege, teach thier child about thier religion ... It baffles me.

and it might baffle me - if it were true! In fact the priests you mention DO teach at primary level. And teachers of religion are called Cathecists
http://www.teachingcouncil.ie/registration_information/default.asp?NCID=488

Page 23
Applicants must provide officially certified evidence of satisfactory achievement in primary degree studies (or equivalent) as outlined hereunder:

The study of Religious Education (or Religious Studies or Theology) as a major subject in the degree extending over at least three years and of the order of 35% at a minimum of that period

Details of the degree course content to show that the knowledge and understanding required to teach Religious Education to the highest level in post-primary education has been acquired

The study of the following elements as an integral part of the degree course: Moral Theology, Scripture or Biblical Studies, Systematic Theology and Christology/Origins of Christianity with either Philosophy of Religion or World Religions

The methodology and practice of the teaching of Religious Education in post-primary education must be studied as an essential part of the training-in-teaching course

Explicit details of standards achieved in degree studies in Religious Education with at least an overall Pass result in the examinations

ISAW

Ghost Buster wrote: »

We need a new Godwinesque term for when the Irish inevitably bring ":The Brits" into the debate.

I thought we didn't and they brought themselves in but one could blame Mc Murrough I suppose.

Beruthiel

ISAW wrote: »

I have difficulty with this reason.

It makes perfect sense to me.
She has no religious beliefs. Why would she feel the need to meet up with others who also have no religious beliefs?

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

I have difficulty with this reason.

Would you pay to join a Muslim group given that neither you nor Muslims are Hindus (look! you have something in common)?

No? Then you shouldn't have much difficulty with this reason :P

Dades

ISAW wrote: »

Should one think people should not marry unless they argee 100 per cent on everything?

You think people get married because they agree on everything? Weird.

ISAW wrote: »

Should one refuse to vote for fianna Fail or fiae gael or whatever because they don't agree with 100 per cent of their policies?

Not voting removes your say in how the country is governed so it makes sense at least to vote for the party with whom you agree the most.

ISAW wrote: »

Maybe i have taken you up wrong and you only mean when you have to pay money to join?

You've taken it up wrong by comparing it to marriage and voting - when you should really just be comparing it to joining a club.

keppler

Dades wrote: »

Not voting removes your say in how the country is governed so it makes sense at least to vote for the party with whom you agree the most.

This is a hypothetical question Dades I know but......are you saying that if AI were a left wing political party you would join them or at least give them your vote in support?

Dades

keppler wrote: »

This is a hypothetical question Dades I know but......are you saying that if AI were a left wing political party you would join them or at least give them your vote in support?

I have no idea where you're getting that from.
I'm not inclined to vote based on anything other than economic policies, much less join a political party.

strobe

ISAW wrote: »

and it might baffle me - if it were true! In fact the priests you mention DO teach at primary level. And teachers of religion are called Cathecists
http://www.teachingcouncil.ie/registration_information/default.asp?NCID=488

Page 23
Applicants must provide officially certified evidence of satisfactory achievement in primary degree studies (or equivalent) as outlined hereunder:

The study of Religious Education (or Religious Studies or Theology) as a major subject in the degree extending over at least three years and of the order of 35% at a minimum of that period

Details of the degree course content to show that the knowledge and understanding required to teach Religious Education to the highest level in post-primary education has been acquired

The study of the following elements as an integral part of the degree course: Moral Theology, Scripture or Biblical Studies, Systematic Theology and Christology/Origins of Christianity with either Philosophy of Religion or World Religions

The methodology and practice of the teaching of Religious Education in post-primary education must be studied as an essential part of the training-in-teaching course

Explicit details of standards achieved in degree studies in Religious Education with at least an overall Pass result in the examinations

Not sure how long ago I made that post or in what context but I'm pretty certain I was talking about Primary School teachers, not priests or secondary level religion teachers. So don't think any of your above post applies to what I said. Thanks for the info though........

keppler

Dades wrote: »

I have no idea where you're getting that from.
I'm not inclined to vote based on anything other than economic policies, much less join a political party.

As I said it was a completely hypothetical question.....on looking at my post I see that I should not have put in the "are you saying" part.
Your post pointed out the problem of comparing 'voting for a political party' & 'joining AI'. I was only wondering what your opinion would be in the imaginary scenario whereby AI could easily be compared to a political party.
By asking the question I was merely trying to get some insight into something that I am thinking about.....I would not have used your answer to debate with you

alex73

alex73 wrote: »

Its Crazy to want to remove a Cross from a Classroom because it violates the rights of non believers.. My kids went to a Muslim school totally permeated with Muslim teaching, Symbols... Does not change anything I as a parent was able to explain that is their history, but its not our belief. There should be a dialogue and not a purge of Symbols. lets face it, Ireland is Christian (Catholic/Protestant) we should be allowed to have the symbols of our faith and history.

We have symbols of our history everywhere: the flag, architecture, literature, art, music, culture. I'm as Irish as you, as I have an old native surname, I have lived here all my life and I can speak the language quite well. But I don't buy into any of this theistic nonsense. The argument from tradition is not an argument at all. Religious faith holds back scientific progress, it teaches children that critical thinking is distasteful, and it has damaged (socially, mentally, emotionally and physically) the people on this island for too long.

keppler

Deleted User wrote: »

We have symbols of our history everywhere: the flag, architecture, literature, art, music, culture. I'm as Irish as you, as I have an old native surname, I have lived here all my life and I can speak the language quite well. But I don't buy into any of this theistic nonsense. The argument from tradition is not an argument at all. Religious faith holds back scientific progress, it teaches children that critical thinking is distasteful, and it has damaged (socially, mentally, emotionally and physically) the people on this island for too long.

Viva la revolucion!

AnonymousPrime

No.

It is akin to a religion

AnonymousPrime

AnonymousPrime wrote: »

No.

It is akin to a religion

How can it be akin to a religion when it lacks all the defining characteristics of a religion?
Would you consider joining a college club akin to a religion?

Improbable

King Mob wrote: »

How can it be akin to a religion when it lacks all the defining characteristics of a religion?
Would you consider joining a college club akin to a religion?

I always liked the analogy of not collecting stamps being a hobby.

Dades

keppler wrote: »

Your post pointed out the problem of comparing 'voting for a political party' & 'joining AI'. I was only wondering what your opinion would be in the imaginary scenario whereby AI could easily be compared to a political party.

I can't really envisage a situation where, similar to the Green Party, a group like AI forms the basis for a political party with a core (in this case, secular) agenda. And I can't imagine voting for them if they did, for the reasons I mentioned previously.

When the chips are down - like they are now in Ireland - parties like the Greens are not going to drag us out of the mire (if that's even possible).

ISAW

Beruthiel wrote: »

It makes perfect sense to me.
She has no religious beliefs. Why would she feel the need to meet up with others who also have no religious beliefs?

Well maybe ...
for the same reasons you post to the A&A forum or support it's existance?

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

Would you pay to join a Muslim group given that neither you nor Muslims are Hindus (look! you have something in common)?

I think you have the example the wrong way around. People might join an anti-muslim group with others who are also anti muslim because they have opposition to Islam or a lack of belief in Islam in common. They would not joing an Islamic group unless they had Islam in common. Likewisr they would join an atheist group because they had atheism (or antitheism) in common.

No? Then you shouldn't have much difficulty with this reason :P

Well I do because your logic is backwards. It was not about joining groups who have beliefs you do not share it was about joining a group based on other belief you do share.

ISAW

Dades wrote: »

You think people get married because they agree on everything? Weird.

No I think the uidea expressed - that one should not join anything because you will not agree with that group 100 per cent - is what is weird.

Not voting removes your say in how the country is governed so it makes sense at least to vote for the party with whom you agree the most.

Exactly and thus - support them even if you don't agree 100 per cent? Rather than not support them because you do not agree 100 per cent?

You've taken it up wrong by comparing it to marriage and voting - when you should really just be comparing it to joining a club.

Maybe . Or maybe some people do not join Fianna Fáil or the GAA but still support them.
I don't mean support their right to exist but actually support their policies and actively encourage them. for example they might not join but still support anti theist activities. But then are they not just freeloading in a sense? i.e. they are not prepared to put in the effort but are prepared to reap the benefit?

Dades

ISAW wrote: »

No I think the uidea expressed - that one should not join anything because you will not agree with that group 100 per cent - is what is weird.

Did someone say that? Why should anyone feel obliged to join anything? I'm cool with Humanism though I'm not officially a member.

ISAW wrote: »

Exactly and thus - support them even if you don't agree 100 per cent? Rather than not support them because you do not agree 100 per cent?

I support some of their causes, certainly. The main reason I'm not a member is I couldn't be arsed. I do have an issue with what they titled themselves, but that's just a topic of conversation and not really a big deal considering I have plenty of real issue to consider in life (issues that supporting one political party over another might ease, for example).

ISAW wrote: »

Maybe . Or maybe some people do not join Fianna Fáil or the GAA but still support them.
I don't mean support their right to exist but actually support their policies and actively encourage them. for example they might not join but still support anti theist activities. But then are they not just freeloading in a sense? i.e. they are not prepared to put in the effort but are prepared to reap the benefit?

I'm not a marcher or a placard waver but I like to think we've done our bit in A&A over the last 6 or so years to promote awareness on plenty of issues.

We were last to the party in Religion & Spirituality and look at us know. Post anything in Google Ireland about religion/secular matters and you will get a Boards.ie hit.

AnonymousPrime

King Mob wrote: »

How can it be akin to a religion when it lacks all the defining characteristics of a religion?
Would you consider joining a college club akin to a religion?

I will admit I am not 100% sure what Atheist Ireland do.
However, I am guessing it contains the elements of community spirit, brotherhood etc... that religion instills. On a parallel note, I think there is a large amount of belief involved in Atheism, but I am not willing to go into it further (so you can take it as opinionated ramblings if you like).

Although a college club also promotes theses values, it uses the medium of a shared interest, and not a shared insight.

But then you could also argue that all religions are extravagant college clubs, where the Pope is the student president, Rome is the SU building and Sunday is €3 Tuesdays.

AnonymousPrime

AnonymousPrime wrote: »

I will admit I am not 100% sure what Atheist Ireland do.
However, I am guessing it contains the elements of community spirit, brotherhood etc... that religion instills. On a parallel note, I think there is a large amount of belief involved in Atheism, but I am not willing to go into it further (so you can take it as opinionated ramblings if you like).

Although a college club also promotes theses values, it uses the medium of a shared interest, and not a shared insight.

But then you could also argue that all religions are extravagant college clubs, where the Pope is the student president, Rome is the SU building and Sunday is €3 Tuesdays.

I do love it when people answer their own questions.
Also yes, claiming there is a large amount of belief involved in Atheism, is opinionated ramblings.

And even if it wasn't you are still missing the pretty much all of the defining characteristics of a religion.

AnonymousPrime

As defined, Atheism is not an interest although the vehicles which it uses are (scientific themes and whatnot). I guessed on the activities of Atheist Ireland based on its name, and accept that I was wrong.

King Mob wrote: »

Also yes, claiming there is a large amount of belief involved in Atheism, is opinionated ramblings.

You are willing to pounce on a point which has not been expanded in any way because it goes against your current thinking?

King Mob wrote: »

And even if it wasn't you are still missing the pretty much all of the defining characteristics of a religion.

The most noticeable characteristic (or certainly the most noticeably negative characteristic) of a religion, is a group of people attempting to exert a moral or intellectual superiority over those in disagreement with them.

AnonymousPrime

AnonymousPrime wrote: »

As defined, Atheism is not an interest although the vehicles which it uses are (scientific themes and whatnot). I guessed on the activities of Atheist Ireland based on its name, and accept that I was wrong.

So you can see how they can be a group yet not a religion?

AnonymousPrime wrote: »

You are willing to pounce on a point which has not been expanded in any way because it goes against your current thinking?

No, because it's wrong, and an oft repeated fallacy here.

AnonymousPrime wrote: »

The most noticeable characteristic (or certainly the most noticeably negative characteristic) of a religion, is a group of people attempting to exert a moral or intellectual superiority over those in disagreement with them.

Wrong again.
If we are to use this definition anything is a religion.
Supporting a football team, liking a particular band, being in a political group.

Here's a hint: the definition of a religion isn't something you can fit on a bumper sticker or t-shirt.

AnonymousPrime

King Mob wrote: »

If we are to use this definition anything is a religion.
Supporting a football team, liking a particular band, being in a political group.

If you look at my original post I said akin to a religion.
And yes, socially and personally all of these activities can also be, in ways, like a religion. Especially if you take a religion as a social construct, which I would imagine you do.
The difference being that the various major religions have more attractive and complete ideologies allowing them to persist for longer than, say, the Progressive Democrats.

If you don't agree with me, think about the crossover point where a social group becomes a cult.

(various other points acknowledged)

AnonymousPrime

AnonymousPrime wrote: »

If you look at my original post I said akin to a religion.
And yes, socially and personally all of these activities can also be, in ways, like a religion. Especially if you take a religion as a social construct, which I would imagine you do.
The difference being that the various major religions have more attractive and complete ideologies allowing them to persist for longer than, say, the Progressive Democrats.

If you don't agree with me, think about the crossover point where a social group becomes a cult.

(various other points acknowledged)

So it's akin to a religion is that it's a group of people who meet up now and then?
Not exactly convincing and makes your objection seem a bit silly.

AnonymousPrime

King Mob wrote: »

So it's akin to a religion is that it's a group of people who meet up now and then?
Not exactly convincing and makes your objection seem a bit silly.

We are seriously talking in circles here, I agreed that I had a bad definition of atheist ireland about 3 posts ago, making my objection null and void......thread out.

AnonymousPrime

AnonymousPrime wrote: »

We are seriously talking in circles here, I agreed that I had a bad definition of atheist ireland about 3 posts ago, making my objection null and void......thread out.

But the defintion you use for a religion in the previous point is still inaccurate.

AnonymousPrime

King Mob wrote: »

But the defintion you use for a religion in the previous point is still inaccurate.

....thread in.

It can't be as, I explicitly only gave partial definitions.

AnonymousPrime

AnonymousPrime wrote: »

....thread in.

It can't be as, I explicitly only gave partial definitions.

Why exactly are you only giving partial definitions?

I suppose if you only use a partial definition of a horse (for example: it's a mammal) you could prove that a man is also a horse.

limklad

Nope I have my Religion. Munster Rugby is my religion for "The Brave and the Faithful".

Why on earth do you not want me to believe in Nothing is beyond me Down with Atheist, I already have something to believe in.

ISAW

Dades wrote: »

Did someone say that?

i.e. I think the idea expressed - that one should not join anything because you will not agree with that group 100 per cent - is what is weird.
Oh the pity we dont have threaded view.

Care to follow the links back to message seven?

there is no organisation that I agree with 100% of their ideas, ideals or opinions so there is little point in me paying for the privilege of merely sharing a lack of belief in a god and disagreeing on many points

Dades

ISAW wrote: »

i.e. I think the idea expressed - that one should not join anything because you will not agree with that group 100 per cent - is what is weird.
Oh the pity we dont have threaded view.

Care to follow the links back to message seven?

Okay I have and I now see Ickles' comment. Fair enough! Though Is that what she means? I'm not sure - and I don't agree if that's the case.

I stand by my comments about your comparison with marriage and voting being very distinct from joining a club.

AnonymousPrime

King Mob wrote: »

Why exactly are you only giving partial definitions?

I suppose if you only use a partial definition of a horse (for example: it's a mammal) you could prove that a man is also a horse.

No, I could say (not proove) that a man is similar to a horse. Then I can compare all of the characteristics of a man and I horse which I find relevent to me (in this analogy, that they both have skin and eyes), realise that they are indeed both mammals and be satisfied in my comparison knowing that all other characteristics are superficial.