Kildare atheist group

Hotblack Desiato

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I completely agree.

Sigh... if you're going to post BS at least stick to your position!

nozzferrahhtoo

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

The very absence of belief for me does not require any discussion.

Perhaps the issue here is your description right there is somewhat limited and could be slightly expanded. When people form atheist groups they are not forming "A group of people based around the absence of god belief" but they are forming "A group of people, based around the absence of god belief, within a society where the vast majority of people do, or claim to, have that belief".

And it is the context offered by that addition that lends clues to what people in such groups have to discuss. And it is not solely "Anti Religion" but "How best can we maximize our own well being, as non theists, in the theistic society in which we find ourselves".

And that can include day to day mundane things, or society level legal and procedural and red tape issues, or issues surrounding the education of our children, or our self expression in a situation where laws such as the blasphemy law potential make certain forms of self expression illegal, or how we can best partake in the religious ceremonies of our closest friends and families without impinging on our well being or theirs, or how to promote the human and ethical rights of people negatively impacted by the predominant theistic trends of that society (atheists, and any other groups too) and much much much more.

So it is not solely sitting around discussing non-belief, so much as discussing non-belief in the context of finding oneself living in a society heavily permeated by that belief.

In fact since you are predominantly having this discussion with Micheal Nugent, it might be interesting to hear it from his own mouth in a speech he gave that touches on the issue here. If the 3:19 length of the video is too long for you, you could skip forward to about 1:25. And Micheal Talks slow enough that you can usefully up the video speed to x1.25 without any loss of clarity

Samuel T. Cogley

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Sigh... if you're going to post BS at least stick to your position!

I'm sorry you did not understand my posts. Clear debate is a skill that one can develop in some excellent groups in Ireland. Perhaps I would benefit, it certainly seems you would.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Perhaps the issue here is your description right there is somewhat limited and could be slightly expanded. When people form atheist groups they are not forming "A group of people based around the absence of god belief" but they are forming "A group of people, based around the absence of god belief, within a society where the vast majority of people do, or claim to, have that belief".

And it is the context offered by that addition that lends clues to what people in such groups have to discuss. And it is not solely "Anti Religion" but "How best can we maximize our own well being, as non theists, in the theistic society in which we find ourselves".

And that can include day to day mundane things, or society level legal and procedural and red tape issues, or issues surrounding the education of our children, or our self expression in a situation where laws such as the blasphemy law potential make certain forms of self expression illegal, or how we can best partake in the religious ceremonies of our closest friends and families without impinging on our well being or theirs, or how to promote the human and ethical rights of people negatively impacted by the predominant theistic trends of that society (atheists, and any other groups too) and much much much more.

So it is not solely sitting around discussing non-belief, so much as discussing non-belief in the context of finding oneself living in a society heavily permeated by that belief.

In fact since you are predominantly having this discussion with Micheal Nugent, it might be interesting to hear it from his own mouth in a speech he gave that touches on the issue here. If the 3:19 length of the video is too long for you, you could skip forward to about 1:25. And Micheal Talks slow enough that you can usefully up the video speed to x1.25 without any loss of clarity

Again I would simply say that I wouldn't consider that an Athesist group. Many of the topics such as secular education may be considered completely sensible by a believer. It's a laudable goal though and far be it for me to discourage such meets regardless of moniker.

Personally I prefer (purely for me) to engage through other groups mainly based on the legal side. However I can certainly see why people may want to gather from the position of Atheists if that's their main driver.

It's certainly a subject that some people are passionate about. Some eloquently so, others not so much.

Michael OBrien

Briana Shrilling Skepticism wrote: »

How can an atheist group be heavily religious.. I thought you were all anti religious!

Please read that again. I was referring to the PLACES you could meet, not the group itself. Obviously you might have problems meeting in a place run by very religious groups or orders. Sometimes it can be hard to find a good cheap meeting place, that allows for multi-media or privacy (not shouting at each other over pub noise).

Michael OBrien

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Again I would simply say that I wouldn't consider that an Athesist group. Many of the topics such as secular education may be considered completely sensible by a believer. It's a laudable goal though and far be it for me to discourage such meets regardless of moniker.

Personally I prefer (purely for me) to engage through other groups mainly based on the legal side. However I can certainly see why people may want to gather from the position of Atheists if that's their main driver.

It's certainly a subject that some people are passionate about. Some eloquently so, others not so much.

Atheist groups don't have to be focused on atheism solely to the exclusion of all else, being an atheist does not make that the only aspect of that person's character. While counter-apologetics can and often are discussed, there can be other discussions that cover day to day experiences, philosophy, art, history, current events, sport, social activities, etc. Atheists are just people who don't believe in a god or gods, so that only excludes topics that involve following dogma related to that area. Everything else is open to discussion.
Nor does atheist groups have to be solely for atheists, but for anyone interested in learning about our non-theist viewpoints, or to help us learn about other viewpoints that other groups share with us.
For example you can have the pro-choice discussion, or pro-life discussion, neither is tied ultimately to a god. There are atheists that hold views across the whole spectrum there.

The reason an atheist group might be called atheist is because it is primarily going to be run by and involve atheists, as theists have plenty of alternative groups they can attend if they wish. There are plenty of atheist groups that do not use 'atheist' in their title as well, as they have their own goals in mind that may not include topics you think of as atheist directly. This can include book clubs, charity works or just socializing without the annoyance of faith and prayer intruding.

robindch

Mod:

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Ah, so you're onto the whole semantic bullsh1t: "limited topic", "vacuum" --you're just pulling this out of your UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE DELETED

No need for that kind of language there.

Thanking youze.

Samuel T. Cogley

On that note, I'm completely derailing the OP's request.

Best of luck with it OP it certainly seems a to be luadable, or at the very least a good reason to discuss philosophy in the pub!

Apologies again for my initial mickey taking also.

nozzferrahhtoo

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Again I would simply say that I wouldn't consider that an Athesist group.

I live in Germany at the moment and I am the main organizer for an English speaking group. We do not generally come together once a month to discuss english. OR to discuss our inability to speak German. But despite the fact we do not come together to discuss English or English Speaking or non-German speaking.... we still consider ourselves the English Speaking Group.

That is to say, it is what brings the group together that defines who and what they are, but not what they discuss when together. Coming together as a group that do not believe there is a god, similarly does not require that the group be defined by what they then discuss. The group would be defined by what collected them, not by what they do as a collection.

But, as I said, atheists groups do not sit around merely discussing being atheist. They mainly sit around discussing what it means to be atheist in a society that is not. And that very much defines them as an atheist group.

For example the Julia Sweeny types very much do benefit from such groups to meet other atheists and receive support for being an atheist in a society where quite often you can suffer for being so. Many atheists literally have to "come out" and often to their detriment or suffering. And atheist groups can offer advice, guidance and support in such scenarios. How would that NOT define them as an atheist group exactly? The moniker appears entirely accurate there.

looksee

Not sure why everyone is getting their knickers in such a knot over what Samuel T Cogly has posted. I am sure he does not need my support but I think his contribution has been civil and reasonable, not sure why there is so much really rather aggressive response.

I agree with him on the whole, but that is just my view and not one I particularly go on about as, if people want to have atheist meetings, go for it, I would not be interested, but that's just me. Michael O'Briens last post explained his views well, it should have been possible to do that earlier without all the aggravated response from posters.

Edit, I include Nozzferahhtoo's explanatory post in that, too. And I didn't think STC's post was offensive even if it was a bit mickey taking - surely we are not so fragile in here that we cannot deal with a lighthearted dig?

Mark Hamill

looksee wrote: »

Not sure why everyone is getting their knickers in such a knot over what Samuel T Cogly has posted. I am sure he does not need my support but I think his contribution has been civil and reasonable, not sure why there is so much really rather aggressive response.

I agree with him on the whole, but that is just my view and not one I particularly go on about as, if people want to have atheist meetings, go for it, I would not be interested, but that's just me. Michael O'Briens last post explained his views well, it should have been possible to do that earlier without all the aggravated response from posters.

Edit, I include Nozzferahhtoo's explanatory post in that, too. And I didn't think STC's post was offensive even if it was a bit mickey taking - surely we are not so fragile in here that we cannot deal with a lighthearted dig?

Is it too obvious that an atheist meeting would talk about much the same things as an atheist forum? It could be why people in an atheist forum react to the asking of the question "what would atheist meetings have to talk about" as if it was taking the mickey.

looksee

Because sitting in your house/wherever, throwing in an odd two-pennorth as the subject arises is a lot different to going and sitting in a group whose only special common interest is not believing in god/s and talking round it for an evening. Others might disagree, and indeed evidently do, and fair play to them if that is what they want to do, but that is not a good reason for taking issue with someone not wanting to do that, which is an equally legitimate angle.

Mark Hamill

looksee wrote: »

Because sitting in your house/wherever, throwing in an odd two-pennorth as the subject arises is a lot different to going and sitting in a group whose only special common interest is not believing in god/s and talking round it for an evening. Others might disagree, and indeed evidently do, and fair play to them if that is what they want to do, but that is not a good reason for taking issue with someone not wanting to do that, which is an equally legitimate angle.

But the question is not why do people go to atheist meetings when there is an online forum instead, the question is what do atheist meetings even have to talk about. The first question is not unreasonable to ask. The second, on an atheism forum with 60+% more posts than the Christianity forum, doesn't seem so reasonable to me.

J C

Briana Shrilling Skepticism wrote: »

How can an atheist group be heavily religious.. I thought you were all anti religious!
It's a shame to see that people equate Christianity with "the church" and priests, especially when the Church existed before they came on the scene and still exists outside of them.

JC if you want some company in an atheist meeting id be happy to go along to provide a non religious outlook on Christianity.ive 30 years experience of being against religion:)

... like I have said previously, there are some Christians, like you and me, who are non-religious ... and the term 'non-religious' isn't exclusive to Atheists and Agnostics.

looksee

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But the question is not why do people go to atheist meetings when there is an online forum instead, the question is what do atheist meetings even have to talk about. The first question is not unreasonable to ask. The second, on an atheism forum with 60+% more posts than the Christianity forum, doesn't seem so reasonable to me.

That (bolded) is not what I said. I was not suggesting an either/or situation, though I think there was a bit of overlap with posts.

However. I don't think the fact that there is a good deal of discussion on A&A, which a person engages with, suggests that it follows they would necessarily enjoy an evening of live discussion. I could see going to a talk or presentation about a topic, and maybe a discussion, but meeting with a group when your only common point is atheism would not be my idea of a good evening. Still that's just me.

It would have been helpful if someone had been willing to give an idea of what would actually happen at a meeting, and how it worked, but the responses went straight into 'but its obvious, how can you ask?'

Bristolscale7

looksee wrote: »

It would have been helpful if someone had been willing to give an idea of what would actually happen at a meeting, and how it worked, but the responses went straight into 'but its obvious, how can you ask?'

I gave an example of my previous experience: drink pints and talk about Bertrand Russell. The response was "but that's not atheistic!"

Hotblack Desiato

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I'm sorry you did not understand my posts.

Oh, I understood them perfectly well. Thanks for the concern.

Samuel T. Cogley

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Is it too obvious that an atheist meeting would talk about much the same things as an atheist forum? It could be why people in an atheist forum react to the asking of the question "what would atheist meetings have to talk about" as if it was taking the mickey.

Responding to this directly as it looked as if the conversation continued and it's a good point, plus Mark Hamill was amazing in the Wing Commander games (okay amazing might be overstating it).

I've no problem if people had responded to me, admittedly, taking the mickey - which I did apologise for. I'd have had no problem if they'd even responded rudely prior to an apology. What happened though was a discussion was going on and a couple of people decided to go on the attack (rather ineffectively), not because I had taken the mickey but because my opinion dared to differ. I tend to shrug that off when it comes to posting in the religious forums but in this one it came of something as a surprise.

I'm not for one second having a go at you; quite right that being glib will engender a certain type of response. I did find your point about the forum interesting though and I did want to come back and respond to it.

Taking the first 3 stickies: We have a random thread, a funny religion thread and a religious scandals thread.

I don't consider any of those about Atheism per se, and the latter two I would categorise as being, by implication, anti-religous. With. Good. Reason. (Trying to be as clear as possible here).

Taking the first six threads (as of this post):

Half baked cakes, Atheism Plus, Secular state, Left wing cookies, Burka ban and Abortion.

These seem firmly about politics and law/morality.

The Atheism Plus thread does indeed seem to be an Atheism discussion - one I have only glanced over so I may have that wrong.

So out of nine topics there we have one which seems to be a discussion about Atheism and eight which seem to me to be interesting discussions for Atheists, however they're also interesting discussions for any one else.

I think the problem lies though in forums as very rightly pointed out by Looksee they operate completely differently to meetings. Not only is this forum also aimed at Agnostics, but you'll have all sorts in here and that will generate a volume of discussion that would never happen at a meeting.

I take the point, however, that an Atheism group is a bunch of people from all walks of life who wish to discuss topics that are important to them and loosely connected to Atheism. I also take the point that some may see my questions surrounding that as pure semantics, that's absolutely fair enough - I don't even mind being called out on it and having a discussion, all I ask is it is a discussion and people remain civil.

Mark Hamill

looksee wrote: »

That (bolded) is not what I said. I was not suggesting an either/or situation, though I think there was a bit of overlap with posts.

I didn't say you asked the question, nobody reacted to you, they reacted to Samuel T. Cogley, who repeatedly question what an atheism group would discuss.

looksee wrote: »

However. I don't think the fact that there is a good deal of discussion on A&A, which a person engages with, suggests that it follows they would necessarily enjoy an evening of live discussion.

I never said it did.

looksee wrote: »

It would have been helpful if someone had been willing to give an idea of what would actually happen at a meeting, and how it worked, but the responses went straight into 'but its obvious, how can you ask?'

Post 24?
(to repeat my original point) This forum?

Mark Hamill

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I've no problem if people had responded to me, admittedly, taking the mickey - which I did apologise for. I'd have had no problem if they'd even responded rudely prior to an apology. What happened though was a discussion was going on and a couple of people decided to go on the attack (rather ineffectively), not because I had taken the mickey but because my opinion dared to differ. I tend to shrug that off when it comes to posting in the religious forums but in this one it came of something as a surprise.

Who attacked you for having a different opinion? I saw a poster call you out for taking the mickey.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I'm not for one second having a go at you; quite right that being glib will engender a certain type of response. I did find your point about the forum interesting though and I did want to come back and respond to it.

Taking the first 3 stickies: We have a random thread, a funny religion thread and a religious scandals thread.

I don't consider any of those about Atheism per se, and the latter two I would categorise as being, by implication, anti-religous. With. Good. Reason. (Trying to be as clear as possible here).

Taking the first six threads (as of this post):

Half baked cakes, Atheism Plus, Secular state, Left wing cookies, Burka ban and Abortion.

These seem firmly about politics and law/morality.

The Atheism Plus thread does indeed seem to be an Atheism discussion - one I have only glanced over so I may have that wrong.

So out of nine topics there we have one which seems to be a discussion about Atheism and eight which seem to me to be interesting discussions for Atheists, however they're also interesting discussions for any one else.

And why exactly would or should that not apply to an Atheism meeting as well?

I think the problem is that you decided, sans evidence, that atheism meetings must only be about atheism itself, and decided your personal view of atheism as being inactive and an absence meant that there can be no discussions about atheism itself. And then, when posters contradicted that by explaining what atheists meetings might entail, you responded by taking the mickey.
You really surprised that people responded how they did? You really trying to claim the higher ground here over those people?

Samuel T. Cogley

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Who attacked you for having a different opinion? I saw a poster call you out for taking the mickey.


And why exactly would or should that not apply to an Atheism meeting as well?

I think the problem is that you decided, sans evidence, that atheism meetings must only be about atheism itself, and decided your personal view of atheism as being inactive and an absence meant that there can be no discussions about atheism itself. And then, when posters contradicted that by explaining what atheists meetings might entail, you responded by taking the mickey.
You really surprised that people responded how they did? You really trying to claim the higher ground here over those people?

I'm sorry you see it that way. I see it differently, I've made it very clear what I think an Atheism meeting would be about and other posters have graciously entered into the discussion, others have not.

I'm not claiming any moral high ground here, just a bit suprised some people are so sensative, not something I expected of Atheists, but as I have learnt there seem to be many different kinds.

Mark Hamill

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I'm sorry you see it that way. I see it differently, I've made it very clear what I think an Atheism meeting would be about and other posters have graciously entered into the discussion, others have not.

I'm not claiming any moral high ground here, just a bit suprised some people are so sensative, not something I expected of Atheists, but as I have learnt there seem to be many different kinds.

Yes, you made it clear, but then when people pointed out that wasn't the case you took the mickey. That was when other people reacted to you. And now you are trying to twist people calling you out for taking the mickey as them being too sensitive. And still trying to claim the high ground.
The more you post, the less genuine you seem.

Samuel T. Cogley

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Yes, you made it clear, but then when people pointed out that wasn't the case you took the mickey. That was when other people reacted to you. And now you are trying to twist people calling you out for taking the mickey as them being too sensitive. And still trying to claim the high ground.
The more you post, the less genuine you seem.

Going to have to call you out here Mark I'm afraid. You either haven't read the thread or you're just being argumentative for the sake of it.

Firstly I wasn't the first to question an Athiest group. I started in post #9 making an offhand joke about religion. I obviosuly misjudged the room there, thought it would be found funny. Not a good enough reason to post on a thread, apologied in general terms for this and now in specific terms.

Post #10 was someone else making a joke ans then someone engaged with me and I engaged back, perfectly politely and seriously, making my point which I have not deviated from. See post #12

JC and I were having what I considered to be a nice chat and in that vien I took the mickey. Bristolscale7 made a comment and subsequently seems to have got very angry - I was absolutely genuine in my reply at post #19 EDIT: To be fair on re reading it did get heated between us faults on both sides there.

Michael joined the discussion and said he disagreed, at this point I was engaged, seriously politely and civilly. There has then been what I consider a perfectly polite exchange between a few of us admittadly with a couple (maybe 3 of us) in a minority opinion.

Mark Hamill

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Going to have to call you out here Mark I'm afraid. You either haven't read the thread or you're just being argumentative for the sake of it.

Firstly I wasn't the first to question an Athiest group. I started in post #9 making an offhand joke about religion. I obviosuly misjudged the room there, thought it would be found funny. Not a good enough reason to post on a thread, apologied in general terms for this and now in specific terms.

Post #10 was someone else making a joke ans then someone engaged with me and I engaged back, perfectly politely and seriously, making my point which I have not deviated from. See post #12

JC and I were having what I considered to be a nice chat and in that vien I took the mickey. Bristolscale7 made a comment and subsequently seems to have got very angry - I was absolutely genuine in my reply at post #19 EDIT: To be fair on re reading it did get heated between us faults on both sides there.

Michael joined the discussion and said he disagreed, at this point I was engaged, seriously politely and civilly. There has then been what I consider a perfectly polite exchange between a few of us admittadly with a couple (maybe 3 of us) in a minority opinion.

Firstly, I never said you were the first to question the atheist group.

Secondly, I took your later posts as taking the mickey as I could not understand how someone could genuinely not understand how other people might see their atheism differently to how they see their own atheism. You talked of what atheism means (or doesn't mean) to you and why that called into question the atheist groups. Other posters pointed out that it does mean other things to other people, hence the groups, but you kept going on as if your own view of atheism was the only valid one (e.g "as soon as an atheism groups starts talking about something that isn't atheism it's no longer specifically an atheism group").
This is, I believe, why Bristolscale7 accused you of feigned thickness.

Samuel T. Cogley

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Firstly, I never said you were the first to question the atheist group.

Secondly, I took your later posts as taking the mickey as I could not understand how someone could genuinely not understand how other people might see their atheism differently to how they see their own atheism. You talked of what atheism means (or doesn't mean) to you and why that called into question the atheist groups. Other posters pointed out that it does mean other things to other people, hence the groups, but you kept going on as if your own view of atheism was the only valid one (e.g "as soon as an atheism groups starts talking about something that isn't atheism it's no longer specifically an atheism group").
This is, I believe, why Bristolscale7 accused you of feigned thickness.

Again Mark, that simply doesn't tally with what's in the thread.

See post #12 where I expressed it was my opinion, #14 where I reinforced it again.

Mark Hamill

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Again Mark, that simply doesn't tally with what's in the thread.

See post #12 where I expressed it was my opinion, #14 where I reinforced it again.

This doesn't even contradict my point? Are you just posting here for the sake of it?

Samuel T. Cogley

Mark Hamill wrote: »

This doesn't even contradict my point? Are you just posting here for the sake of it?

I think it does Mark, and frankly I'd ask you the same question.

I made it clear from the get go this was in my view. Have I missed the meaning of your point in your post at 10:40?

Samuel T. Cogley

Let's stop the peeing contest shall we?

What's your issue - if it's that my opinion differs that's fine. It's objectively in the thread that

i) I'm thick
ii) I have a view on what atheism is
iii) others disagree
iv) I didn't try and force my view on anyone just stated my position and what it meant to me.

Do you have anything you want me to answer, do you have anything you want to add to the discussion?

Mark Hamill

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Let's stop the peeing contest shall we?

What's your issue - if it's that my opinion differs that's fine. It's objectively in the thread that

i) I'm thick
ii) I have a view on what atheism is
iii) others disagree
iv) I didn't try and force my view on anyone just stated my position and what it meant to me.

Do you have anything you want me to answer, do you have anything you want to add to the discussion?

I would like you to answer the last question I asked: "Are you just posting here for the sake of it?". Because that's all it looks like: In post #74 I explained what I meant and I quoted one of your posts to show you what I was referring to. Your only response was that my points didn't tally with the thread and you repeated the reference to other older posts, even though I quoted what I was referring to. If you are just going to repeat the same mantra regardless of the points other posters are making, how is this discussion supposed to continue?

You could also answer the first question I asked:
Is it too obvious that an atheist meeting would talk about much the same things as an atheist forum?

Samuel T. Cogley

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I would like you to answer the last question I asked: "Are you just posting here for the sake of it?". Because that's all it looks like: In post #74 I explained what I meant and I quoted one of your posts to show you what I was referring to.

You're completely losing me here Mark. The post you quoted in #74 was calling you out on:

Yes, you made it clear, but then when people pointed out that wasn't the case you took the mickey. That was when other people reacted to you. And now you are trying to twist people calling you out for taking the mickey as them being too sensitive. And still trying to claim the high ground.
The more you post, the less genuine you seem.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Your only response was that my points didn't tally with the thread and you repeated the reference to other older posts, even though I quoted what I was referring to. If you are just going to repeat the same mantra regardless of the points other posters are making, how is this discussion supposed to continue?

Again Mark, I made the point in the post you quoted. You're talking about Post#68 I take it? Your reply:

And why exactly would or should that not apply to an Atheism meeting as well?

I think the problem is that you decided, sans evidence, that atheism meetings must only be about atheism itself, and decided your personal view of atheism as being inactive and an absence meant that there can be no discussions about atheism itself. And then, when posters contradicted that by explaining what atheists meetings might entail, you responded by taking the mickey.
You really surprised that people responded how they did? You really trying to claim the higher ground here over those people?

Most of this discussion about the discussion is because you picked things up wrong. Do you understand that point? If so I think we can move on, there was no 'mickey taking' at the point you think there was.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You could also answer the first question I asked:
Is it too obvious that an atheist meeting would talk about much the same things as an atheist forum?

Yes let's return to that point, and I'll do so as if the thread above has not happened it that okay? I think it's just easier that way.

So, to me that's not an atheist group. It's a group of people, seemingly (looking at MG's post) a very open group of people from all walks of life talking about a range of topics mainly centred around politics and law. Specifically I think the point ref a forum vs. a meeting can't be compared as they're very different.

We can jump off the conversation from there perhaps?

Mark Hamill

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

You're completely losing me here Mark. The post you quoted in #74 was calling you out on:

Apologies, I should have been clearer: I'm not talking about the post in the quote box in #74, I'm talking about the one I quoted in brackets during my response ("as soon as an atheism groups starts talking about something that isn't atheism it's no longer specifically an atheism group"). That is from post #33, long after post #19 where you gave your opinion about what atheism means to you and others replied to point out that it means other things to others.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

So, to me that's not an atheist group.

If you just stopped there then that would be fine, but you don't and that's your problem. You are not asking about atheist groups, you are telling everyone your opinion of what atheism is and then contradicting other people when they tell you what atheists groups actually involve. Remember post #33 where you said "as soon as an atheism groups starts talking about something that isn't atheism it's no longer specifically an atheism group"? That might be how you feel about atheism groups, but you don't get to decide that for other people.
And I say that as someone who doesn't go to any atheist meeting.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Specifically I think the point ref a forum vs. a meeting can't be compared as they're very different.

They are obviously structurally different, but I do not see why you would conclude the content would be different.

Samuel T. Cogley

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Apologies, I should have been clearer: I'm not talking about the post in the quote box in #74, I'm talking about the one I quoted in brackets during my response ("as soon as an atheism groups starts talking about something that isn't atheism it's no longer specifically an atheism group"). That is from post #33, long after post #19 where you gave your opinion about what atheism means to you and others replied to point out that it means other things to others.


If you just stopped there then that would be fine, but you don't and that's your problem. You are not asking about atheist groups, you are telling everyone your opinion of what atheism is and then contradicting other people when they tell you what atheists groups actually involve. Remember post #33 where you said "as soon as an atheism groups starts talking about something that isn't atheism it's no longer specifically an atheism group"? That might be how you feel about atheism groups, but you don't get to decide that for other people.
And I say that as someone who doesn't go to any atheist meeting.

That's my opinion though Mark. A couple of people were asking similar questions. At each point I've said to me or in my view, but I don't think walking on such eggshells is even required.

Expressing my opinion, even forcefully is not making the decision for anyone else. I was very much engaged by the people who posted civilly, despite disagreeing with me.

I'm still not entirely clear what you're looking to accomplish/prove or even discuss here.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

They are obviously structurally different, but I do not see why you would conclude the content would be different.

Well I can certainly get behind this part of the discussion. I hope you don't mind me posting what I said above:

I think the problem lies though in forums as very rightly pointed out by Looksee they operate completely differently to meetings. Not only is this forum also aimed at Agnostics, but you'll have all sorts in here and that will generate a volume of discussion that would never happen at a meeting.

So you and I for example, don't attend meetings so our discussion would not take place. I also don't think you'd get many religious people, of which there appears to be a few in the forum. But putting all that aside for a moment, I don't consider the vast majority of the topics in this forum about Atheism, which only takes be back to my original point.

Call it being thick, circular logic or what have you but it's a genuine opinion. One I'm more than happy to debate with you though!

pajo1981

Sam Kade wrote: »

What exactly does an atheist group do?

Righ now I'd say it's about getting the church out of state finnaced schools. When religion is not longer being pushed on people there is no need for athiest groups to exist.

Mark Hamill

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

That's my opinion though Mark.

I don't want to repeat myself, but I was writing a response to this and was several sentences in when I realised I was repeating myself, so anyway to repeat myself:
If you just stopped there (i.e. stating your opinion and then stating you would not get what others get out of atheist meetings) then that would be fine, but you don't and that's your problem. You are not asking about atheist groups, you are telling everyone your opinion of what atheism is and then contradicting other people when they tell you what atheists groups actually involve. Remember post #33 where you said "as soon as an atheism groups starts talking about something that isn't atheism it's no longer specifically an atheism group"? That might be how you feel about atheism groups, but you don't get to decide that for other people.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Well I can certainly get behind this part of the discussion. I hope you don't mind me posting what I said above:

I think the problem lies though in forums as very rightly pointed out by Looksee they operate completely differently to meetings. Not only is this forum also aimed at Agnostics, but you'll have all sorts in here and that will generate a volume of discussion that would never happen at a meeting.

So you and I for example, don't attend meetings so our discussion would not take place. I also don't think you'd get many religious people, of which there appears to be a few in the forum. But putting all that aside for a moment, I don't consider the vast majority of the topics in this forum about Atheism, which only takes be back to my original point.

Call it being thick, circular logic or what have you but it's a genuine opinion. One I'm more than happy to debate with you though!

You are still repeating the same points that have been answered by other posters, notably:
-Atheist meetings aren't just for atheists (non-atheists might not want to show up, but they are welcome, at least in the case of Atheist Ireland meetings)
-Even if only atheists showed up, there can still be the same discussions as this forum (many might be more one sided, but there have been many discussions in this forum with atheists strongly disagreeing with each other - e.g. the Burka Ban thread)
-Atheist meetings aren't just about atheism (not that there aren't many possible topics just about atheism, e.g. see the 7000+ books on Amazon about atheism)

Also, just to point out, Agnostic is not necessarily a distinct position from Atheism. Gnostism relates to knowledge, while theism/atheist relates to belief. Very nearly all atheists and theists are agnostic atheists or agnostic theists, as very few claim absolute certainty in their belief that god does or doesn't exist.

Samuel T. Cogley

Sorry Mark, I think you're right in we'll just have to agree to disagree. I've tried my best to start over with you as it were but I'm not going to apologise for or indeed stop sharing my opinion.

Interesting point about Agnostics though. My own experiance is they are two very different things. I went through a theist and agnostic period myself. I rememebr watching something with Dawkins recently where he mentioned a brief Theist period. I'd say I disagree that very nearly all, or even many Atheist's are agnostic. I've obviously no proof of that, but I think that would be the defining characteristic of most Atheists. If there ain't proof I don't believe, simialr points are being made in the afterlife thread I posted in, it might be best to continue to address this if you so wish, there.

Hotblack Desiato

The word agnostic is commonly misused to mean unsure i.e. somebody who doesn't know whether they believe in a god or not. But agnostic comes from gnosticism, which isn't about belief but about knowledge.

So you can have an agnostic theist, who does believe but isn't certain that god exists

Or an agnostic atheist, who does not believe but can't rule out the possibility that some god may exist.

There are theists who claim to have no doubts whatsoever, gnostic theists, these tend to be on the very nutty end of the belief spectrum

There are some atheists also who claim that the existence of any god is impossible, gnostic atheists, but off the top of my head I can't name a single one. Richard Dawkins does not classify himself as one. So he's an agnostic atheist too.

Samuel T. Cogley

Not wishing to ignite the debate before post #86 but if anyone wants to know what I do consider an Atheist discussion its the one Mark Started and Hotblack continued.

robindch

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

There are some atheists also who claim that the existence of any god is impossible, gnostic atheists, but off the top of my head I can't name a single one.

I've a faint recollection that we might have entertained one or two gnostic atheists here in A+A down through the years, but it was never clear whether they were trolling.

I certainly don't ever recall meeting one, though I've met plenty of noisy religious people who insist that all atheists are gnostic atheists, heathens, fornicators and the like.

Michael OBrien

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Not wishing to ignite the debate before post #86 but if anyone wants to know what I do consider an Atheist discussion its the one Mark Started and Hotblack continued.

Well, leaving aside that you cannot disprove something that has never had any evidence for it in the first place, gods only have been shown to come FROM human beliefs. Our antropology shows that early religions had simplier beliefs that evolved along the lines of spiritualism/ancestor worship (not gods) to giving these more power and elevating them to higher and higher levels of control and discernibility (priests benefit from this). Then the priests got more competitive and you had families of gods, hierarchies of gods and then one god with lots of powerful entities serving or resisting that god but 'definitely' not gods in their own right (almost like a trademark was at risk).
Frankly I would say that there is absolutely no reason to think a god is even possible let alone plausible but philosophically you do have to allow for the possibility that something akin to what we NOW think is a god, MIGHT exist but it is just covering our butts really.
Humans invented gods, which we now as atheists consider nonsense, so if there is 'something' else behind it all, it cannot be what we think of as a god, because the characteristics given to gods are not evident in our universe. Now if you are referring to a deist god, something NOT in our universe, then I would argue it is completely irrelevant anyway and since it is content to leave us be, it would not matter if we turn out to be wrong.