Should Michael Nugent and Atheist Ireland stop speaking for all atheists?

antitheist1

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.

antitheist1

I have tried to edit my first post to make it less personal but for some reason I cannot. Apologies for the personalized tone of course.

TheChizler

Where does he claim to speak for all atheists?

silverharp

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

Not a member of Atheist Ireland, nor always in agreement with what they have to say, but think what they and Michael Nugent do say is a considerable step forward from nothing being said at all. Michael seems to work very hard at what he does, with what comes across as a sincere passion, and achieves quite a lot. The fact that he doesn't get it right in the eyes of all atheists all the time is moot, as I'm not sure it is an audience anyone is going to keep entirely happy all of the time.

eviltwin

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. I would imagine AI campaign on issues their members raise. Anytime I've heard Michael speak he doesn't talk about all atheists or claims to, in fact he often mentions how atheists often have diverse views.

magicbastarder

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.

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.

smacl

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.

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.

One eyed Jack

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.

Probably better to say that the RCC Hierarchy assume to speak for everyone and to everyone in society, whether they be members of the RCC or not.

At least Michael any time I've ever heard him being interviewed, has only spoken for his organization and for what he represents. I've never heard him presume to speak for all atheist and non-religious people (though I have a feeling that in Ireland at least there are far more of the latter than the former).

antitheist1

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.

Listen to the piece again he makes generalised claims about the moral position of atheists.

Kidchameleon

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.

In fairness, a huge amount of Catholics would say the church doesnt speak for them. Ssm, contraception the list goes on.

antitheist1

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.

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

Kidchameleon wrote: »

In fairness, a huge amount of Catholics would say the church doesnt speak for them. Ssm, contraception the list goes on.

Atheism can not be compared with a church in any way. Its just a non belief in god!!!!!!

antitheist1

eviltwin wrote: »

No organisation is ever going to speak for all its members..

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

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.

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

smacl

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.

Nodin

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.

Remarkably well thought out and reasoned strategy there.

antitheist1

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

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

Nodin wrote: »

Remarkably well thought out and reasoned strategy there.

A joke not a strategy.

antitheist1

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.

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.

smacl

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.

I'm not a member either, so they nor do they represent me. There is however an increasingly large interest in both atheism and secularism in Ireland that the media are keen to explore, and Atheist Ireland seem like a natural (only?) port of call. Feeling misrepresented in the media is an everyday event, just look at our politicians and celebs waxing lyrical on what it means to be Irish. In the larger scheme of things, I reckon Michael Nugent is far from the worst, and on balance beneficial.

silverharp

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.

but its fair to say they speak for more people than are members of their group. Parents worried about educational issues for example, various gay rights over the years etc. Putting some clarifying statement before everything they say would be become boring. Im sure interviewers are free to ask who they represent, and I doubt they would be too arrogant to say they represent all non believers.

Mr. CooL ICE

I'm not an AI member, but I do admire what Michael Nugent has achieved to date. As of a few years back, he was perhaps a bit too outspoken and possibly did claim to speak for more people than he claimed, but his position on that seems to have changed over time. I don't know his background, but campaigning for the secularisation of a country which is supposed to be secular is not an easy task, nor does it have a book of instructions. I imagine the entire thing is a learning process for him.

I'd go as far to say that Michael and AI represent the viewpoints of a higher % of Ireland's atheists than Iona does for Irish catholics.

expectationlost

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.

here the audio http://podcast.rasset.ie/podcasts/audio/2015/0627/20150627_rteradio1-marianfinucane-theangelus_c20803705_20803711_232_drm_.mp3

speaks about morals at 9:45 minutes

he says "Atheisms is simply the belief is that there are no gods, that the universe is natural and we get our morality and empathy and our compassion and our sense fairness and justice, from naural evolution, we can be kind to each other without inventing supernatural reason for being so."

doing good, empathy, compassion, fairness, justice, kindness, tolerance is what antitheist1 seems to have a problem with.

antitheist1 the degree to which you are any of these things is up to you.

wp_rathead

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

Doctor DooM

Quoth the raven...

Anyway, I am not a member of AI, but over the last 6 months I've heard quite a few debates where the only person who didn't have me screaming at the tv/ radio is Mr Nugent. Perhaps I should join!

smacl

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

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.

wp_rathead

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.

If was solely focused on Secularism I would consider joining

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.

Personally, I don't particularly care about promoting "atheism and reason"
People are free to believe in what they wish
I do, however, care about promoting a "secular Ireland where the state does not support or fund or give special treatment to any religion"

But ya, I've no problem with AI- and I don't believe they do claim to speak for all Atheists

The Black Oil

I dunno. What are AI's policies on biscuits and pineapple on pizza?

K4t

smacl wrote: »

atheists are not organised so no one has an atheist mandate.

Thank god.

Ireland needs complete separation of church and state, not an atheist mandate. Unfortunately, Atheist Ireland seem to be one of the only groups actively lobbying for an end to church state relations in Ireland so they're a necessary evil- the idea of an atheist organization does not sit right with me, it's too close to everything an atheist/anti-theist should despise. But this is little old Catholic Ireland so it's existence is probably a good thing for the while.

magicbastarder

i think the measure of success for AI would be achieving a situation where their existence becomes irrelevant.

Huntergonzo

I have heard a bit of Michael Nugent speaking and I think he's quite good to be honest but I don't think he claims to speak for all atheists, he does however speak on behalf of his organisation Atheist Ireland of which I'm not a member.

I have heard him in the past saying that he may be wrong in what he says and encourages people to question him and everything else they hear plus I generally hear him calling for a secular Ireland, not an Ireland that's biased towards atheists.

Ps, what's with the red shirt though? Has he no other ones?

One eyed Jack

Huntergonzo wrote: »

I have heard a bit of Michael Nugent speaking and I think he's quite good to be honest but I don't think he claims to speak for all atheists, he does however speak on behalf of his organisation Atheist Ireland of which I'm not a member.

I have heard him in the past saying that he may be wrong in what he says and encourages people to question him and everything else they hear plus I generally hear him calling for a secular Ireland, not an Ireland that's biased towards atheists.

Ps, what's with the red shirt though? Has he no other ones?

I don't know why this hasn't been suggested before, but perhaps the powers that be so to speak on Boards could approach Michael with a view to doing an AMA, it might raise the public profile of atheism and secularism and could make for an interesting thread I'd say anyway.

Might finally find out what's the whole deal with the pineapple on the pizzas and the biscuits too, marigold or goldgrain, and just what is the deal with the red jumpers?

(I doubt it has much to do with them being particularly lucky )

Kidchameleon

antitheist1 wrote: »

Atheism can not be compared with a church in any way. Its just a non belief in god!!!!!!

LOL

Atheist Ireland can be compared to it though. That's the main reason why this thread exists. And in any case, I wasn't comparing the two myself.

Hotblack Desiato

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Atheist Ireland can be compared to it though.

Bollocks.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Bollocks.

Organised absence of religion?

Hotblack Desiato

Neither atheism nor AI is comparable in any way to a religion. It's just the usual tiresome nonsense from people who try to derail and stifle any worthwhile discussion in this forum.

84% rabble rabble
atheism is just an ersatz religion, rabble rabble
atheists have no morals, rabble rabble -

- Ironically it is Michael Nugent's counter to that last bollock above which is being dragged up in this thread. Religious people claim to get morals from "god", but atheists have no belief in a god and are yet moral, so they must derive their morals from somewhere and it is THAT which he was talking about. It's actually an interesting question and it's one of the most commonly held and endlessly reiterated fallacies about atheists in general and atheists in Ireland in particular.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Neither atheism nor AI is comparable in any way to a religion. It's just the usual tiresome nonsense from people who try to derail and stifle any worthwhile discussion in this forum.

Atheism is easily comparable to religion, it simply depends on the criteria one uses to compare them. Atheism is the yin so to speak to theisms yang. AI is an organisation the very same way as organised religion is... organised, for example the RCC is often referred to as a club, a club has a membership, AI has a membership. That's not tiresome nonsense, that's simply demonstrating that two different ideologies are indeed comparable.

84% rabble rabble
atheism is just an ersatz religion, rabble rabble
atheists have no morals, rabble rabble -

I'd never say atheists nor non-religious people have no morals, most people have morals, and amoralism isn't particularly indicative of a person's particular ideology. I'm sure we can all cite many examples of people who identify as religious and yet are completely amoral. It's a very black and white view of the world to define people's morals by their ideology, as many people are perfectly happy to be hypocritical when the need suits them, claiming that they are fighting for 'the greater good'. The greater good of course being only what they see as the greater good for everyone else, and so in that respect, AI and the RCC are comparable again - AI wants to end superstition in society, the RCC wants to foster superstition in society. Which is for the greater good? Depends upon who you ask.

- Ironically it is Michael Nugent's counter to that last bollock above which is being dragged up in this thread. Religious people claim to get morals from "god", but atheists have no belief in a god and are yet moral, so they must derive their morals from somewhere and it is THAT which he was talking about. It's actually an interesting question and it's one of the most commonly held and endlessly reiterated fallacies about atheists in general and atheists in Ireland in particular.

As commonly held and endlessly reiterated fallacies go about religious people and religious people in Ireland in general, not all religious people claim to get their morals from a deity, or the Bible, or the Catechism for that matter. Michael is countering a point in that instance that nobody has made. The point he should be countering is that people have no right to impose their morality upon other people, but then that wouldn't bode well for his organisation which seeks to impose the morality of atheism upon people, and in particular Irish people.

Two sides of the same coin really, and one of the reasons why AI hasn't really gained any traction in Ireland is because non-religious people don't care to identify as atheist, and are even more averse to the idea of anti-theism. They're very much a live and let live bunch and to each his (or her) own, as was witnessed in the recent referendum. For most people in Irish society, we have our morals, not necessarily derived from either atheism or theism, but from our own individual morality, which contributes to the common greater good for all, and not just the clubs that would have them as a member.

antitheist1

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Atheism is easily comparable to religion, it simply depends on the criteria one uses to compare them. Atheism is the yin so to speak to theisms yang. AI is an organisation the very same way as organised religion is... organised, for example the RCC is often referred to as a club, a club has a membership, AI has a membership. That's not tiresome nonsense, that's simply demonstrating that two different ideologies are indeed comparable.





I'd never say atheists nor non-religious people have no morals, most people have morals, and amoralism isn't particularly indicative of a person's particular ideology. I'm sure we can all cite many examples of people who identify as religious and yet are completely amoral. It's a very black and white view of the world to define people's morals by their ideology, as many people are perfectly happy to be hypocritical when the need suits them, claiming that they are fighting for 'the greater good'. The greater good of course being only what they see as the greater good for everyone else, and so in that respect, AI and the RCC are comparable again - AI wants to end superstition in society, the RCC wants to foster superstition in society. Which is for the greater good? Depends upon who you ask.





As commonly held and endlessly reiterated fallacies go about religious people and religious people in Ireland in general, not all religious people claim to get their morals from a deity, or the Bible, or the Catechism for that matter. Michael is countering a point in that instance that nobody has made. The point he should be countering is that people have no right to impose their morality upon other people, but then that wouldn't bode well for his organisation which seeks to impose the morality of atheism upon people, and in particular Irish people.

Two sides of the same coin really, and one of the reasons why AI hasn't really gained any traction in Ireland is because non-religious people don't care to identify as atheist, and are even more averse to the idea of anti-theism. They're very much a live and let live bunch and to each his (or her) own, as was witnessed in the recent referendum. For most people in Irish society, we have our morals, not necessarily derived from either atheism or theism, but from our own individual morality, which contributes to the common greater good for all, and not just the clubs that would have them as a member.

I can see why you would see AI as quasi religious, but this has little to do with my main point.AI should only represent members of its own organisation not all atheists. It should make that clear in interviews

AI are very pedantic about certain issues they argue about but choose to ignore the elephant in the room. They should only claim to represent their own members based on their own agreed set of values and aims and not all people who are atheists. The very idea of representing all atheists is absurd and AI should make that clear. Of course if AI can claim to be the voice of irish atheism it's great for them but it's disingenuous.

Seems to me if AI want to adopt humanist principals and claim them as Atheist they should just join the humanists. Atheism is just the non belief in god its nothing else. Nothing about morality nothing about secularism nothing about human rights just a simple non belief in god.

magicbastarder

yeah, michael nugent should have a small print disclaimer he reads out every time someone asks him for AI's stance on an issue.

antitheist1

speaks about morals at 9:45 minutes

he says "Atheisms is simply the belief ........................., that the universe is natural and we get our morality and empathy and our compassion and our sense fairness and justice, from naural evolution, we can be kind to each other without inventing supernatural reason for being so.".[/QUOTE]


Well no that's not what atheism is. It's nothing got to do with this at all. Morality empathy compassion justice .............. sounds like the sermon on the mount. Inventing supernatural reasons for morality no thanks. Attributing moral principals as something intrinsic to atheism no thanks either.

antitheist1

magicbastarder wrote: »

yeah, michael nugent should have a small print disclaimer he reads out every time someone asks him for AI's stance on an issue.

Yes if he is going to make sweeping statements that atheism is about secularism, rationality, Morality, the value of scientific thinking, all laudable in their own way but way beyond what atheism actually is.

If AI is going to be so pedantic about religious belief should it not be pedantic about what atheism is not?

antitheist1

magicbastarder wrote: »

yeah, michael nugent should have a small print disclaimer he reads out every time someone asks him for AI's stance on an issue.

Yes if he is going to make sweeping statements that atheism is about secularism, rationality, Morality, the value of scientific thinking, all laudable in their own way but way beyond what atheism actually is.

If AI is going to be so pedantic about religious belief should it not be pedantic about what atheism is not?

See religious groups have linked their god to morality and moral principals to give themselves legitimacy now we see AI trying to link moral principals as intrinsic to atheism. Why. To give themselves legitimacy.

One eyed Jack

antitheist1 wrote: »

I can see why you would see AI as quasi religious, but this has little to do with my main point.AI should only represent members of its own organisation not all atheists. It should make that clear in interviews

AI are very pedantic about certain issues they argue about but choose to ignore the elephant in the room. They should only claim to represent their own members based on their own agreed set of values and aims and not all people who are atheists. The very idea of representing all atheists is absurd and AI should make that clear. Of course if AI can claim to be the voice of irish atheism it's great for them but it's disingenuous.

Seems to me if AI want to adopt humanist principals and claim them as Atheist they should just join the humanists. Atheism is just the non belief in god its nothing else. Nothing about morality nothing about secularism nothing about human rights just a simple non belief in god.

Oh I don't see AI as quasi religious at all. I see Michael as clearly an articulate guy who is passionate about what he believes is in society's best interests. I may not agree with all he says, but I can certainly see where he's coming from, and I think his enthusiasm, his work ethic, and his commitment to his cause is commendable. I also like the way he explains atheism in a way that an ordinary person who isn't a theologian can understand. That's all I've ever heard him do in interviews really. I've never heard him claim or even imply that he speaks on behalf of all people who identify as atheist in Ireland. That's not ignoring the elephant in the room, the reality is that there was never an elephant in the room in the first place (somebody check the fridge!).

I don't think AI are co-opting humanist or secularist principles at all either tbh. Nobody has an IP copyright on ideology. In that respect, AI can easily co-exist with the Humanist Association of Ireland, or many other organisations for that matter, because they share many goals in common, but they have their own individual aims too and they perhaps consider those principles too important to compromise on in order to amalgamate into one greater organisation.

I agree with you that Atheism itself is an absence of belief in a deity (to say you don't believe in something is a refusal to believe in it while acknowledging it's possible existence at the same time, and to the best of my knowledge, the word atheism is derived from an indifference to theism), but if Michael chooses to promote atheism alongside secularism and humanism as he sees them, well, more power to him I say. I may not agree with his perspective on some of the various ideologies and idealisms, but I can certainly admire his enthusiasm and his manner in which he helps and encourages people to ask questions of themselves and inform themselves about atheism, secularism, humanism and so on.

He isn't quite so feverent about his philosophies as some people are, and I believe personally that moderate discussion is what helps people's understanding, as opposed to the more craw-thumpy feverent idealist proponents of the modern Atheist movement. They're simply as head wrecking as that which they are opposed to. Another comparison that's easily made - extremists of any ideology do their cause no favours.

oldrnwisr

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Atheism is easily comparable to religion, it simply depends on the criteria one uses to compare them. Atheism is the yin so to speak to theisms yang. AI is an organisation the very same way as organised religion is... organised, for example the RCC is often referred to as a club, a club has a membership, AI has a membership. That's not tiresome nonsense, that's simply demonstrating that two different ideologies are indeed comparable.

No, as Hotblack Desiato has said, neither atheism nor AI are comparable to religion.

Firstly, with regard to AI, it is simply an organisation with members who share a common interest. If you're going to define religion this way or on the basis of your quote above because it's "organised" then this would mean that sports clubs, the women's institute and academic institutes are all religions on this basis. Clearly defining religion on the basis of organisation is insufficient. You are arguing a fallacy of composition here. Just because AI and, for example, the Catholic Church share one characteristic, organisation, does not mean that they are otherwise comparable in any way.

Secondly, atheism is also not comparable to religion. To use the old cliche, if atheism is a religion then off is a tv channel. Atheism has no creeds, no beliefs, no holy texts, no positive positions of any kind. It is not a belief system, a worldview, an ideology or a religion. It is simply the rejection of theistic claims. It is the answer to one question: Do you believe in God?

antitheist1

One eyed Jack wrote: »

. I also like the way he explains atheism in a way that an ordinary person who isn't a theologian can understand.

Let me do that for all the simple ordinary people.

Atheism means not believing, the absence of belief, in god.

antitheist1

oldrnwisr wrote: »

No, as Hotblack Desiato has said, neither atheism nor AI are comparable to religion.

Firstly, with regard to AI, it is simply an organisation with members who share a common interest. If you're going to define religion this way or on the basis of your quote above because it's "organised" then this would mean that sports clubs, the women's institute and academic institutes are all religions on this basis. Clearly defining religion on the basis of organisation is insufficient. You are arguing a fallacy of composition here. Just because AI and, for example, the Catholic Church share one characteristic, organisation, does not mean that they are otherwise comparable in any way.

Secondly, atheism is also not comparable to religion. To use the old cliche, if atheism is a religion then off is a tv channel. Atheism has no creeds, no beliefs, no holy texts, no positive positions of any kind. It is not a belief system, a worldview, an ideology or a religion. It is simply the rejection of theistic claims. It is the answer to one question: Do you believe in God?

Maybe that point deserves another thread but it's nothing to do with my point.

Atheist ireland should only claim to speak for its own members not all atheists.

One eyed Jack

antitheist1 wrote: »

Let me do that for all the simple ordinary people.

Atheism means not believing, the absence of belief, in god.

There's somewhat of a sizeable difference in audience figures between you explaining atheism on Boards.ie, and Michael explaining atheism in the national media.

nozzferrahhtoo

Do womens rights organisations throw out the caveat at the start of every interview that they do no speak for all women? Do trade unions have to say they do not speak for every worker? Do homeless charities seeking rights and facilities for the homeless mention they are not speaking for all homeless people? Do childrens associations point out they might not be speaking for all children?

Why single out AI and no one else and demand they mention this caveat in every interview, when no one else has to? I have more respect for the public than that and expect when they see a representative for any organisation appear in the media that they know, without being spoon fed it like docile retards, that the person is representing their organisation and not every single person the label in the name of the organisation might actually apply to.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

but then that wouldn't bode well for his organisation which seeks to impose the morality of atheism upon people, and in particular Irish people.

By all means regale us with what the morality of atheism actually entails and how it is being imposed by his organisation. In fact in every interview I have recently heard from him he has set himself as being JUST as opposed to the establishment of atheism in schools, the Angelus or anything else as he is to anything religious being there.

One eyed Jack

oldrnwisr wrote: »

No, as Hotblack Desiato has said, neither atheism nor AI are comparable to religion.

Firstly, with regard to AI, it is simply an organisation with members who share a common interest. If you're going to define religion this way or on the basis of your quote above because it's "organised" then this would mean that sports clubs, the women's institute and academic institutes are all religions on this basis. Clearly defining religion on the basis of organisation is insufficient. You are arguing a fallacy of composition here. Just because AI and, for example, the Catholic Church share one characteristic, organisation, does not mean that they are otherwise comparable in any way.

I did say though that the validity of the comparison is dependent upon what criteria one uses to compare them. I didn't define religion or atheism as a club though. I define them as ideologies. I defined AI and the RCC as clubs, and whatever ideology they espouse is merely an identifier of their club, or a commonality of their particular club.

So in that respect, the women's institute, academic institutes and so on, are all clubs. I don't think that's a composition fallacy, religion is nothing more than an ideology, and the various denominations are the clubs. Atheism is an ideology, and AI are the club, and there are many more clubs with atheist ideology as their commonality.

Secondly, atheism is also not comparable to religion. To use the old cliche, if atheism is a religion then off is a tv channel. Atheism has no creeds, no beliefs, no holy texts, no positive positions of any kind. It is not a belief system, a worldview, an ideology or a religion. It is simply the rejection of theistic claims. It is the answer to one question: Do you believe in God?

Atheism is an indifference to theism as I always understood it, as opposed to an outright rejection of theistic claims. The rejection of theistic claims is an anti-theist position if I'm reading that correctly?

I never liked that analogy, especially now we're in the digital age of enlightenment. So I would compare them thusly - atheism is the black and white television. Religion is the colour television. Atheism is nothing to get too excited about, whereas religion on the other hand, well there's lots to discover, so that's what makes it a pretty colourful experience, as opposed to the black and white of atheism. There's still plenty going on, but it's rather dull IMO in comparison to religion. The modern Atheist movement tries to pit science against religion in order to gain a following as though the two are diametrically opposed to each other, and in reality, they aren't. The two are quite compatible and one has been around as long as the other.

I think you're asking the wrong question there if you're expecting atheism is the correct answer. Indifference to claims of supernatural and existential powers is what I would see as a more accurate descriptor of atheism. I don't think personally that atheism has ever been the answer to any questions, and in truth IMO it's an ideology that presents more questions than answers for a curious mind. Religion was, and still is for many, an attempt to answer those questions. The modern upsurge in scientific inquiry is no bad thing either though. It's like the 3D version of religion's CRT... perhaps stretching the metaphor there

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Why single out AI and no one else and demand they mention this caveat in every interview, when no one else has to? I have more respect for the public than that and expect when they see a representative for any organisation appear in the media that they know, without being spoon fed it like docile retards, that the person is representing their organisation and not every single person the label in the name of the organisation might actually apply to.

For someone with the ability to express themselves in eloquent terms, I would have expected better. I absolutely despise the use of that archaic term and it's connotations.

By all means regale us with what the morality of atheism actually entails and how it is being imposed by his organisation. In fact in every interview I have recently heard from him he has set himself as being JUST as opposed to the establishment of atheism in schools, the Angelus or anything else as he is to anything religious being there.

No regaling necessary, it's simply an absence of belief in a deity or deities, and one of AI's main aims is to eradicate superstitious beliefs in Irish society. I happen to possess the ability to separate Michael's personal philosophy from Atheist Ireland as an organisation, and so while Michael is opposed to established atheism in institutions, the net effect of Atheist Ireland's aims is that by ridding society of supernaturalism and superstition, Ireland becomes an atheist society by default.

I can't see that happening in my lifetime, but I can still admire Michael for his efforts. I'm not really keen on the aims of Atheist Ireland though. I like their ideas about secularism, just not so much the eradication of superstition and supernaturalism in Irish society. In any society there is a place for all ideologies, and none need be eradicated. I see that as an unnecessary imposition on society.