Does antitheism exist?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

From the link:

The House of Lords Appointments Commission was established in 2000. It is independent and separate from the House of Lords.

The Appointments Commission recommends individuals for appointment as non-party-political life peers. It also vets nominations for all life peers, including those recommended by the UK political parties, to ensure the highest standards of propriety. Members can be suggested by the public and political parties. Once approved by the prime minister, appointments are formalised by the Queen.

In other words there is a multi-step process involving nomination, vetting and approval of an individual before that person is appointed to the House of Lords. That process applies to all peers ... except the Bishops who are simply automatically appointed when they are appointed to another position in another organisation (or may even be automatically appointed when another of their number retires).

The equivalent would be if the person appointed as General Secretary of the TUC (not an unreasonable comparison) was automatically also appointed to the House of Lords at the same time. Now Frances Lorraine O'Grady may well be a suitable person to be a peer, but in order for her to become one she'd have to go through the nomination, vetting and approval regardless of the fact of being appointed as general secretary of the TUC. By contrast John Sentamu (to give an example) was automatically appointed as a peer the moment he was appointed as Archbishop of York.

Surely even you can see the disparity Vlad.

I agree that the Gen Sec should have a place in the upper house.
Do you also see that the "relevance" argument put forward by Outrider could be used against having such representation?

[ProfessorDavey]

Which is why I am advocating membership of more religions ...

The problem with this (and with faith schools) is that, even if you agree in principle (I don't) it doesn't work in practice.

So there are approx. 1 million members of the Church of England - so if that 'buys' 26 automatic places in the HoLs for their most senior office holders, well yo'll need 26 RCC Bishops automatically appointed, probably tens of senior Imams automatically appointed etc etc.

But you'll also need equivalent numbers of automatic appointments from other major organisations - so approx 150 senior trade union office holders automatically appointed, similar numbers of the top officers of the National Trust, another 30 odd top officers from the RSPB automatically appointed and so on.

It simply doesn't work, nor does it make any sense - by appointing individuals and ensuring you attract a wide talent pool you'll end up with christians, muslims, atheists, bird lovers, union supporters etc etc. You don't need to automatically reserve seats for the most senior officials from those organisations.

[ProfessorDavey]

I agree that the Gen Sec should have a place in the upper house.

But should she be automatically given a seat purely by virtue of being appointed to that role?

And about 150 other senior union officials who would also need to be automatically appointed to the HoL by virtue of being appointed to that roles, as unions have about 6 million members in the UK, and if the 1 million CofE members 'buys' 26 automatic places then 6 million should buy about 150 seats.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The problem with this (and with faith schools) is that, even if you agree in principle (I don't) it doesn't work in practice.

So there are approx. 1 million members of the Church of England - so if that 'buys' 26 automatic places in the HoLs for their most senior office holders, well yo'll need 26 RCC Bishops automatically appointed, probably tens of senior Imams automatically appointed etc etc.

But you'll also need equivalent numbers of automatic appointments from other major organisations - so approx 150 senior trade union office holders automatically appointed, similar numbers of the top officers of the National Trust, another 30 odd top officers from the RSPB automatically appointed and so on.

It simply doesn't work, nor does it make any sense - by appointing individuals and ensuring you attract a wide talent pool you'll end up with christians, muslims, atheists, bird lovers, union supporters etc etc. You don't need to automatically reserve seats for the most senior officials from those organisations.

Bird lovers? They're not getting militant again, fucking Trotskyists.
Bird loving is not a world view.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

That is why it's best not to have one route into parliament which can be dominated by a narrow cadre.

Just remind me, which is the only group that has a fixed number of guaranteed seats in the HoL allocated on a taxi rank basis regardless of relevant expertise or experience?

Does that sound like a “narrow cadre” to you?

Anyway, what should you have learned (but probably haven’t) from this latest sorry exchange? Here’s a few lessons to get you started:

1. “Antitheism” does not mean what you thought it meant. This mean that you no longer have any excuse for the category error of using “antitheist” and “atheist” as if they're interchangeable. They’re not.

2. It’s a very, very bad idea to reference Wiki for support without bothering to link to the citation or, apparently, without bothering to read it at all when in fact it precisely aligns with the definition you’ve been given and fails to validate the one you were making up.

3. “X should not have privileged access by right” and “I want X to be banned” are fundamentally not the same statement. Lying about that once and being corrected is one thing – doing it three times though is pathological.   

4. Throwing in diversionary questions to make good your escape from being discovered in various misunderstandings and misrepresentations may be true to form for you, but it does you no credit nonetheless.

5. No-one cares if someone with relevant experience and expertise happens also either to believe or not to believe in god(s). The point though is that they should not be either appointed or barred if their belief/non-belief in god(s) is the only criterion for entry/disbarment.

Just think: how refreshing would it be if just this once you replied with something, like “yes I know all that to be true now and I promise to try to be more honest in future”. Go on, why not give it a go? You never know, it might even be good for your (ahem) “soul” if you did…

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The problem with this (and with faith schools) is that, even if you agree in principle (I don't) it doesn't work in practice.

So there are approx. 1 million members of the Church of England - so if that 'buys' 26 automatic places in the HoLs for their most senior office holders, well yo'll need 26 RCC Bishops automatically appointed,

Or you allow about 50 and distribute according to membership.

[Gordon]

What a strange thing to bring up..Is this a rhetorical flourish. Gordon?
How is it different from how are inherited wealth old Etonian relevant to me?

Because, silly, there aren't 26 seats in the HoL reserved by default for the exclusive use of old Etonians so as to allow them to participate in the political governance of the UK just because they are old Etonians.

[ProfessorDavey]

Bird loving is not a world view.

Actually I suspect that most RSPB members are interested in conservation and environmentalism rather than being interested in bird-loving, a you rather patronisingly call them - so yes it is a world view.

And why should membership be restricted to 'world view' organisations (whatever that means) and who gets to decide which organisations are world view, and which are not.

[ProfessorDavey]

Or you allow about 50 and distribute according to membership.

Which would need to apply to the CofE too - no automatic seats for the Bishops, just 10 seats to distribute to members. I don't agree, as I don't think the HoLs is there to represent organisations, but to represent people and not all people are members of organisations - and if you bias towards those that are you won't get representation, as I suspect the population is quite binary. Joining people (who are likely members of all sorts of organisations - and likely have the money to support multiple memberships) and non-joiners who likely will include more more disadvantaged and marginalised in society.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which would need to apply to the CofE too - no automatic seats for the Bishops, just 10 seats to distribute to members. I don't agree, as I don't think the HoLs is there to represent organisations, but to represent people and not all people are members of organisations - and if you bias towards those that are you won't get representation, as I suspect the population is quite binary. Joining people (who are likely members of all sorts of organisations - and likely have the money to support multiple memberships) and non-joiners who likely will include more more disadvantaged and marginalised in society.

The HOL will not represent people unless it reflects both the secular and spiritual aspects of life. Unlike all other groups that are de factory interest and experience groups.
The Lords spiritual should represent the spiritual dimension of life and world views.

I don't actually think there is much concern  among people of faith that their particular one is represented by C of E bishops as much as there is with an anti faith uk secularism which looks hungrily at the extraction of religion going on on the continent.

[Outrider]

Which is why I am advocating membership of more religions and world views.

Why do they need reserved spaces?  They are already represented amongst the members of both houses.  Why is religion - of any stripe - something special which needs its own seats in parliament?

There is room too for elected lordships,Lords elected by lot,as well.

How we, as a nation, select the remainder of the upper house is open for debate, but doesn't obviate the point.

We don't need another elected house where those that are good at the dark arts choose to be on what looks like the party of winners.  Career politicians political animals who spend there time divesting themselves of wisdom rather than getting real and representative experience.

If you think those people shouldn't be elected, campaign against them - stand against them, if you choose, but they are selected by the populace.  There are not legally, formally places reserved for them regardless of the will of the electorate, regardless of the activity of the elected representatives of the populace.

That is why it's best not to have one route into parliament which can be dominated by a narrow cadre.

Again, having multiple means of selection is not intrinsically wrong; the problem is that this is not a selection process, it's an automatic privilege of the Church of England to have seats in the upper chamber in addition to any of their membership that are elected or appointed in the normal fashion.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Actually I suspect that most RSPB members are interested in conservation and environmentalism rather than being interested in bird-loving, a you rather patronisingly call them - so yes it is a world view.

No bird loving is by no measure a world view. Don't trivialise the debate.

And why should membership be restricted to 'world view' organisations (whatever that means) and who gets to decide which organisations are world view, and which are not.
[/quote]

[ProfessorDavey]

The HOL will not represent people unless it reflects both the secular and spiritual aspects of life.

Which it will necessarily do if it's members include individuals who happen to be from a variety of religions and also those who are non religious. That does not require, and indeed is hampered by, specific organisations getting automatic seats - whether that be the CofE or the NSS.

Unlike all other groups that are de factory interest and experience groups.
The Lords spiritual should represent the spiritual dimension of life and world views.

The CofE Bishops only represent their world view (and others are available) - they cannot and do not represent me, nor about 95% of the population who aren't CofE members and they have no authority to claim they do. And, of course, the CofE that the bishops represent are just as much an 'interest group' as any other.

[Outrider]

The HOL will not represent people unless it reflects both the secular and spiritual aspects of life. Unlike all other groups that are de factory interest and experience groups.

In what way does it not, currently?  There are numerous Protestant, Catholic, Jewish and Muslim peers, there are a smaller number of Buddhist, Sikh and other representations, and I'm reasonably confident that there are probably some atheists in the mix, too - in what way are they not representative of the populace?  Why does skewing the balance by ensuring an additional 26 seats for Bishops in the Lords?

The Lords spiritual should represent the spiritual dimension of life and world views.

Why is not the place of the range of spiritual outlooks already in the Lords to represent spiritual world views?  Why are they not already capable of doing so?

I don't actually think there is much concern  among people of faith that their particular one is represented by C of E bishops as much as there is with an anti faith uk secularism which looks angrily at the extraction of religion going on on the continent.

I'd agree there is a small body of religious people worried about anti-faith secularism; that fear is misplaced, as it fundamentally misunderstands what secularism is.  Religion is not being 'extracted' from the continent, religion is gradually being discarded by the first world, and removing historic privilege afforded to it is part of that journey.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

No bird loving is by no measure a world view. Don't trivialise the debate.

But environmentalism most definitely is - and the RSPB is an environmental organisation first and foremost.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why do they need reserved spaces?  They are already represented amongst the members of both houses.  Why is religion - of any stripe - something special which needs its own seats in parliament?

How we, as a nation, select the remainder of the upper house is open for debate, but doesn't obviate the point.

If you think those people shouldn't be elected, campaign against them - stand against them, if you choose, but they are selected by the populace.  There are not legally, formally places reserved for them regardless of the will of the electorate, regardless of the activity of the elected representatives of the populace.

Again, having multiple means of selection is not intrinsically wrong; the problem is that this is not a selection process, it's an automatic privilege of the Church of England to have seats in the upper chamber in addition to any of their membership that are elected or appointed in the normal fashion.

O.

I'm not bothered and neither should you be since there is automatic selection for the unlimited number on a secular ticket.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But environmentalism most definitely is - and the RSPB is an environmental organisation first and foremost.

No it's first and foremost a society for the protection of Birds.
I think you'll find the environment is more than just Birds

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm not bothered and neither should you be since there is automatic selection for the unlimited number on a secular ticket.

The 'secular ticket' as you so disparagingly call it (I presume you mean the Lords temporal) does not somehow prevent religious people being appointed to the Lords - quite the reverse. There is no justification for leaders of one religious organisation additionally being provided with 26 automatic places.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The 'secular ticket' as you so disparagingly call it (I presume you mean the Lords temporal) does not somehow prevent religious people being appointed to the Lords - quite the reverse. There is no justification for leaders of one religious organisation additionally being provided with 26 automatic places.

I am not disparaging the secular ticket at all.
28 lords spiritual against a possible unlimited number of Lords temporal. sounds like a great deal for secularists.

Was it not Rowan William s who said he was prepared to see disestablishment until he recently perceived huge hostility from vocal antitheists.

What I am saying is that an Atheocracy is more likely than a theocracy. I can see that given how stinting on giving political forum some of you guys are.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I am not disparaging the secular ticket at all.
28 lords spiritual against a possible unlimited number of Lords temporal. sounds like a great deal for secularists.

You’re making a category error again here. See whether you can work out why for yourself.

Was it not Rowan William s who said he was prepared to see disestablishment until he recently perceived huge hostility from vocal antitheists.

No. Antitheists would be pro-disestablishment, not against it.

What I am saying is that an Atheocracy is more likely than a theocracy. I can see that given how stinting on giving political forum some of you guys are.

What’s an “atheocracy”? People being elected to political office who happen not to believe in god(s) no more means an atheocracy than people being elected to political office who happen not to believe in leprechauns means an a-leprechaunocracy. You’re very, very confused about this.       

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You’re making a category error again here. See whether you can work out why for yourself.

No. Antitheists would be pro-disestablishment, not against it.

What’s an “atheocracy”? People being elected to political office who happen not to believe in god(s) no more means an atheocracy than people being elected to political office who happen not to believe in leprechauns means an a-leprechaunocracy. You’re very, very confused about this.     

An atheocracy is government by atheists,for atheists and on behalf of atheists.

As far as I know no system or ideology or world views governed without the aid of people.

After finding lots of reasons to cordon the word atheist from any use by people other than er,atheists...how are doing with the term antitheists. Are you still self identifying as one?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

An atheocracy is government by atheists,for atheists and on behalf of atheists.

Which is your category error. That would only apply if candidates ran on an atheist ticket rather than just happened to be atheists (or just happened to be a-leprechaunists for that matter too).

Let’s say that you asked every MP about his/her religious beliefs and by chance 100% said they were theists, or 100% said they were atheists. Would that mean we had either a theocracy or an atheocracy? You make this mistake a lot – people can believe or not believe in all sorts of things, but when those beliefs have no relevance to their politics it doesn’t matter.   

As far as I know no system or ideology or world views governed without the aid of people.

So?

After finding lots of reasons to cordon the word atheist from any use by people other than er,atheists...

Wrong again. The word “atheist” is merely “cordoned off” to what the word actually means, no matter who happens to be using it. So are the words “cow” and “bibliography”. What’s wrong with that?

…how are doing with the term antitheists. Are you still self identifying as one?

Surely the point here is to ask how you’re doing with it given that you tried to redefine it for your own purposes, were corrected, referenced Wiki for support, then found out that Wiki actually agreed with the correction and not with your redefinition at all. One of your more epic crashes and burns in other words – though admittedly from a crowded field of such. 

As for whether I “self-identify” and an antitheist, you know I do on the ground that on balance I think religious faith does more harm than good (because overall acting on guesswork is less likely to lead to positive outcomes than acting on reason).

I also happen to be an atheist (because I’ve never seen an argument for god(s) that I can’t falsify) but of course the two aren’t synonymous at all for reasons you should by now understand.   

[ProfessorDavey]

An atheocracy is government by atheists,for atheists and on behalf of atheists.

Why is that relevant - the UK isn't an theocracy (indeed is there anywhere that is) and wouldn't be if the Bishops were kicked out of the HofL. It would only head in that direction were seats in the Lords, or at least some seats in the Lords reserves specifically for atheists, with no balancing seats reserved for non atheists. But no-one is suggesting that.

But of course we currently have a situation where 26 seats in the HofL are reserved for christians with no balancing seats reserved for non christians.

[Outrider]

I'm not bothered and neither should you be since there is automatic selection for the unlimited number on a secular ticket.

It's not an unlimited number, and there is nothing preventing religious people being nominated into those positions - indeed, a significant number of them, as I've already shown, are already filled with religious people.  No-one is suggesting that religion should in any way prevent people being in a position in the Lords.  The problem is when positions in the Lords are reserved explicitly for religious people, and in particular one particular sect of a religion - that is privileging that group over and above everyone else.

It's simple: do you think the Church of England should have additional, specific spaces in parliament?  If you don't, then you are in accord with the secular position on this. If you do... why?

O.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

As for whether I “self-identify” and an antitheist, you know I do on the ground that on balance I think religious faith does more harm than good (because overall acting on guesswork is less likely to lead to positive outcomes than acting on reason).

I note that anti-capitalists have a similar argument - pointing to capitalism doing more harm than good e.g. the links between capitalism and slavery and capitalism and inequality as some of the reasons for being anti-capitalist.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/abolition/industrialisation_article_01.shtml

We can see a direct historical link between capitalism and slavery and we can see the poverty that capitalism causes today due to asset and resourcing stripping of countries leading to a wealthy minority having power over a far poorer majority. So anti-capitalists decide the type of society they would like to live in and based on some of the outcomes of capitalism they reject capitalism as doing more harm than good. 

However, the alternative to capitalism has not worked out too well for any country, so people have accepted a form of capitalism where they try to rebalance some of the inequalities inherent in the system as being better than the alternative.

Having been an atheist and anti-theist myself, I think anti-theism will catch on probably about the same amount as anti-capitalism. I think given the human capacity to hold beliefs, it's probably more realistic to work to rebalance some of the inequalities caused by theism or many other beliefs (political, cultural, moral) rather than try to rid society of theistic beliefs as they will just be replaced with some other abstract belief. There are of course some beliefs that would be difficult for society to entertain. For example we rescue people from cult leaders who ensnare people with their promises to change the world and then indoctrinate them to be under the control of the cult leader.