Harriet Jean Evans takes a look at the social commentary of the past, and explains why she believes it just doesn't matter.
Our anonymous blogger reflects on her attempts to have a student Christmas... and how she came to the conclusion that home-made is always best.
Gillian Love urges you to vote 'No' to the motion to replace Women's Committee with a 'Gender Equality Committee'.
But I know that no society deserves to have their posters defaced with derogatory comments.
On my way from the library yesterday, I happened to notice a poster for the society's most recent pub crawl. Being a vaguely interested semi-member, I stopped to have a look.
To my dismay, someone had been there before me, and left messages scrawled over the poster. Some of them, to be fair, were true, if slightly irrelevant comments on the fact that Christians do not believe in the Greek gods. I'm still not sure quite what the writer's point was - perhaps he assumed that atheism and agnosticism can, of course, only apply to a rejection or uncertainty over the Christian faith. Because no other religions exist. Of course.
But other comments were less misguided and more malicious. Next to the word "friendly", someone had written "apart from to those you deem 'ignorant'" or some such nonsense. Obviously there are always going to be fanatics for every cause (I absolutely hate Richard Dawkins for this precise reason), but I would put good money on the fact that the majority of atheists and agnostics - just like the majority of theists - are tolerant and generally all round nice people - as likely to judge a theist "ignorant" as they would be to call Mother Theresa the most selfish person in history. Call me mistaken if you want, but in the UK, I was sure that relations between theists and atheists were pretty smooth. After all, this isn't the USA. We don't have signs telling us that to be anti-God is anti-British and we live in a fairly secular society (okay, so the clergy big-wigs still sit in the House of Lords) but on the whole, any hostility - more specifically here in York, seem pretty low key.
So why so much malice toward the society?
Perhaps said person (or people) have had particularly bad experiences with people who believe differently from them in the past. But why take it out on the society? Relations between the society and other religious groups on campus, if Facebook is anything to go by, appear to be sound. Recently, the Islamic Society invited the society to a lecture on "Can we live better lives without religion?" - it appears that the majority of atheists, theists and agnostics can all engage progressively with each other in the name of theological, philosophical and educational questioning.
Which makes it all the more shameful when the actions of a few individuals can show the continued existence of groundless prejudice.
No doubt if it had been posters encouraging the pursuit of whatever belief system these vandals subscribe to that had been defaced, they would not have been too happy.
Just because atheists and agnostics may lack faith; it doesn't mean their right to be heard is any less present.
I find it odd that agnostics and atheists are often put under one umbrella - I always thought of it as one questions the idea of deism while the other totally rejects it. I'm surprised they share a society name.
As a christian I get slammed about my beliefs all the time by athiests this is just kama if you ask me.
A christian who believes in Karma? Interesting one
edit: Turns out 'kama' means 'pleasure, sensual gratification, sexual fulfillment, pleasure of the senses etc.' That's almost even better
^^^ Haha I love it.
"someone had written "apart from to those you deem 'ignorant'."
Because defacing posters for a society that doesn't believe in your religion isn't ignorant at all. Bravo, ignorant Christian, bravo.
I agree with this article - if it had been a CU poster or an Islamic society poster - well any intelligent person knows that's just not a right thing to do... So why are there University students who think that this is okay??
@Anonymous 1:
Atheist = Lacking a belief in a god or gods, not necessary the active disbelief.
Agnostic = Being unsure about a claim, although in it's extreme it can also be the claim that knowing is impossible (which would be an atheistic conclusion).
As chair of the society in question, I'm both. I see no reason to believe that any form of deity exists, but I cannot be certain that my position is the correct one. Agnostic Atheist.
Alternatively someone can feel that there is sufficient evidence for a god, but not be completely sure. Agnostic Theist.
As you might be able to tell, I have to explain this quite a lot. 
kudos to #3 xD
And cheers for the definitions, Matt, I can see it can get quite complicated!
Matt, I still think that being an agnostic atheist is a paradox. You can't not believe in God[s] and be unsure of your beliefs at the the same time. If you question the existence of a god/gods, be it from a pessimistic or optimistic perspective, you're an agnostic.
The difference between atheism and agnosticism is the type of truth claim that they make.
Atheism claims that there is no God.
Agnosticism claims that we can rationally neither prove nor disprove the existence of some being which conforms to what we would call God, and perhaps we never will, so we can't be certain enough to say 'there is no God'.
Personally, I think agnosticism is the more convincing position from a strictly rational point of view. I think claiming 'there is no God' is just as rationally unjustified as claiming 'there is a God'.
to #10, see Matt's definitions, they are correct. Atheism is not saying there is no God, a positive assertion, it is not having belief in a God, a neutral stance.
to #9 agnostic is a stance on knowledge, facts, atheism on beliefs; agnostic atheist means I do not believe in God but i do not 100% know there isn't one. And as founder of AAS i am an agnostic atheist, hence the name choice.
This is all bollocks, isn't it?
#12, to which "all" are you are referring?
Several official definitions of atheism I've found from numerous dictionaries:
"denial of the existence of God or any supernatural or spiritual being"
"The attitude that affirms there is no God"
"Rejection of belief in God"
"the theory or belief that God does not exist"
These all sound like positive assertions to me. Don't get me wrong; I think you should be free to self-define your beliefs however you like. I'm just trying to point out that labelling yourself as x, y or z can lead to a lot of misunderstanding about who you are - saying you're an agnostic atheist to me just sounds confused.
I think Wikipedia provides one of the better definition and it should be noted that a lot of people will claim Atheism to be exclusively the claim of there being no gods simply because they are mistaken. In reality there is a spectrum from lacking the belief, to claiming no god to be known. Most people simply lack the belief or are unconvinced by the claims. This touches on the fact that one cannot always disprove a negative (which a gnostic atheist would have to do), this is best demonstrated by Sagan's 'invisible dragon' and Russell's teapot.
It should also again be noted that 'agnostic' and 'atheist' are definitions of different things, just as one can be 'Male' and 'White'.
To quote Wikipedia:
"Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."
I don't condone vandalism or the defacing of posters, but I've got to ask... why is there a society for people who neither have any positive (and, if Matt Ravenhall is to be believed, negative) belief about God nor form part of an organised religion? I mean, what exactly do you all do together? Atheists don't have any shared rituals, traditions, etc. Simply not having a belief about something doesn't seem the best basis for a society. And I'm an agnostic before anyone starts...
It was a viewpoint on campus which I felt wasn't really represented and now it exists opens up some interesting possibilities for cross society debates and speaker events. The methodist chaplain for the university was quite happy the society had been formed and echoed my feelings on the voice being missing.
And in reply to not having the best reason for a society there is a society for people who just aren't british and a society for people who came to uni at the age of 19 or over who have no other connecting features. You could argue that these too aren't the best grounds for a soceity. The fact is it now exists and has quite a few members
To go back to the definitions point with the examples posted in #14:
"denial of the existence of God or any supernatural or spiritual being"
"The attitude that affirms there is no God"
"Rejection of belief in God"
"the theory or belief that God does not exist"
These are definitions that I would agree with. I personally don't believe in any god and consider myself an atheist, however I am also a scientist so don't reject the idea that there might be a god entirely. The whole point of science is that you can never say with 100% certainty that something is true or not true you can only state what you believe to be true based on the evidence that is presented. So, if any evidence for a deity were to come to light I'd be the first to hold up my hands and say I was wrong.
To comment on #16; I think it's important to have a society like this (although I'd rather a secular or humanist society as it would have more potential for inclusivity). As Michael says above, it would otherwise be a missing voice.
As I'm not a humanist I would have felt a bit weird forming the humanist society xx
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report