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

smacl

antitheist1 wrote: »

Okay so if it has more than one meaning explain in interviews that you represent a particular meaning of atheism that is not shared by all atheists...

While I agree with the bulk of your post, at worst you can say is that AI are misusing the term atheist. If like me, you take the simple dictionary definition of atheist, being an atheist doesn't say much that about you, and even though I self identify as an atheist it is a tiny part of my identity. As Oldrnwisr said earlier;

oldrnwisr wrote: »

If atheism is a religion then off is a tv channel.

Thus AI can't mis-represent me when they talk about atheists, for the simple reason they don't represent me by talking about atheists to start with. If you feel misrepresented by someone misusing the term atheist, could be your misusing it yourself. I agree its an annoying niggle, but no more than that. To stretch and confuse the metaphor some, its a bit like saying that people who don't watch tv read more books. Logically dubious, and quite possibly untrue, but hardly a concern to people who don't watch tv.

antitheist1

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I have already made that clear.
I have also made it clear that I will not be prefacing every public statement I make with such a disclaimer, as that would be a disproportionate response to the small number of people in society who do not understand how the media or advocacy groups or personal interviews function, and would come across as eccentrically pedantic to the vast majority of people who do understand it.

I do not think that it would be disproportionate. You're organisations aims etc are as offensive to me than the catholic churches. I do not like being misrepresented. I do not like the fact that even though you acknowledge that there is many versions of atheism, by not making this clear you are shamelessly promoting you're organisations agenda, under the guise of atheism- when most of your organisations ideas could equally be espoused by any group of crack pots.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Discussions evolve. And in any case, your original post was about both me and Atheist Ireland. So, why do you* feel there is little comparison between Atheist Ireland and other advocacy groups?

I have no problem with you advocating but only for the aims of you're membership. I have a problem with you cornering the market in atheism to promote you're organisation and by packaging atheism to suit you're organisations agenda.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

* Despite your name being antitheist1, I will assume that you are speaking on your own behalf and not on behalf of all antitheists, despite you not explicitly clarifying that in any of your posts.

I do not claim to speak for anyone else though do I? Now if I was to boldly use the term Antitheist1 Ireland........................that might be a different thing all together.

Michael Nugent

antitheist1 wrote: »

I do not think that it would be disproportionate.

Well, let's agree to differ then.

I think we're going round in circles now.

antiskeptic

I do not think that it would be disproportionate. You're organisations aims etc are as offensive to me than the catholic churches. I do not like being misrepresented.

I'm a Christian and have far more choice when it comes to complaining about being misrepresented by Christian organizations who don't represent my particular 'brand' of Christianity.

The thought that I'd actually complain to a Christian organization telling the to cease and desist and add disclaimers strikes me as ludicrous. I'd warrant the general public as possessing enough savvy not to suppose that every single Christian (or atheist for that matter) in the world is represented by a single organization - no matter how wide-spanning a name they might chose to give themselves.

The question I'd ask a person self-describing as an atheist is a) whether they've read The God Delusion or not and b) if they have, what score out of 10 to they give it. After that, they go into one of two basic denominations: the more than 3 out of 10's (who are considered homogenous and dogmatic: the Catholic Church of the atheist world) and the less than 3 out of 10's/Haven't Read's (who can be further subdivided into other denominations: the Protestants of the atheist world)

Not a NSA agent

antiskeptic wrote: »

The question I'd ask a person self-describing as an atheist is a) whether they've read The God Delusion or not and b) if they have, what score out of 10 to they give it. After that, they go into one of two basic denominations: the more than 3 out of 10's (who are considered homogenous and dogmatic: the Catholic Church of the atheist world) and the less than 3 out of 10's/Haven't Read's (who can be further subdivided into other denominations: the Protestants of the atheist world)

Well that makes the are you an catholic atheist or a protestant atheist question a lot easier to answer next time Im in the north.

smacl

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

Well that makes the are you an catholic atheist or a protestant atheist question a lot easier to answer next time Im in the north.

Haven't even read the God delusion. Maybe I'm not an atheist after all

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Haven't even read the God delusion. Maybe I'm not an atheist after all

That'd be aatheist

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

That'd be aatheist

Phew, thought I'd been downgraded to a btheist