Organized Atheists

[3Aeons]

My name is Chris and I'm an atheist. Just a common man, but I don't have the common beliefs of other men in this country. I have been an atheist for 5 years now. I was raised a christian, when I was a young boy and I was afraid to go to hell, and my parents took my marilyn manson cd, Antichrist Superstar from me when I was 15, because they said it was the devils music. lol Come on it's just music!! An experience with a certain recreational drug opened my eyes to this amazing feeling, that i can't explain. After that day i've been reading about atheist, evolution, and how fuckin absurb religious people are.

I always thought something was funny with the whole believe in Jesus or go to hell thing. It seemed very dark to me, something didn't sit right with me. my family members from Va. would insist that I get saved, I said I don't need to be saved. I went to church once or twice, I went to church at night once and I think it was a penticostal church. I saw people shaking and falling down in sheets and speaking in tongues. I started laughin to my cousin sitting next to me who was really into the bible and was the reason I was there. I mean these were grown men and women playing "im being taken over by the holy ghost" . I know that these people are crazy as hell and I don't want people like this running my country and making decisions that affect me but a majority of the USA believes in a invisible man in the sky that reads ur mind, and controls every atom in the universe. I wish we could get organized and make ourselves heard.

[ubs]

It takes a strong person to overcome childhood indoctrination. Welcome Chris!

[Irreligious]

I wish we could get organized and make ourselves heard.
But then we'd be part of a religion of sorts, wouldn't we?

As secularists already, we don't need to do that. In the U.S., we have a Constitution that's supposed to protect us from the excesses of these people. We've got to be firm about that. That's the best we can do, really. Otherwise, all the various cults that exist out there have every right to their delusions. And, as for them hearing any other voices but their own, well, don't hold your breath. Most will not listen, no matter how loudly you shout.

And welcome to the forum.

[Professor Chaos]

Welcome!

[Smellyoldgit]

Welcome to the show.
If you want to see atheists organised - just watch how such a concept is arranged here. :P

[nkb]

And, as for them hearing any other voices but their own, well, don't hold your breath. Most will not listen, no matter how loudly you shout.
Unless it's Jesus or Yahweh whispering in their ear.

Welcome, 3Aeons.

[sparhawk13]

I remember when I went to a Pentecostal service. I SPEAK IN TONGUES OF THE HOLY SPIRIT!! YAA-LA-LA-LA-LEI-BOO-BOOOOM!!! (epileptic style seizures ensue, with spittle flying everywhere) I stayed to speak with the pastor to see if I could get some perspective on the insanity that I just witnessed. I got the feeling that she didn't really believe either. She was just making a buck preying off the stoopid people. I could never take any of the people I saw there seriously again. Just like I now have a hard time taking any religious person seriously now. My OIC (boss) is a very smart man, but he firmly believes that black people are the cursed spawn of Cain.


Welcome to the show.
If you want to see atheists organised - just watch how such a concept is arranged here. :P Yeah.

[nkb]

Any mention of Pentecostals always reminds me of the scene in Borat, where he is in the Pentecostal church, and starts "speaking in tongues", except it sounds similar to the fake Kazakh accent he's been using throughout the movie.

Of course, the nutbags buy it, because there are no rules when it comes to gibberish.

[PanAtheist]

But then we'd be part of a religion of sorts, wouldn't we?
Absolute rot!
People with a common interest, voluntarily cooperating and voluntarily co-ordinating, to further that common interest, a religion?!! :lol:
Irreligious's comment is stark raving mad.

3aeons, I think your idea is worthy, and I wish you success in your anti-religious endeavours, and I note that there are many associations, in the states, and internationally, that are endeavouring to counter, the craziness of religiously-acting people and authorities.

The more sane people acting in concert to counter insanity, the better I say.

[Irreligious]

Absolute rot!
People with a common interest, voluntarily cooperating and voluntarily co-ordinating, to further that common interest, a religion?!! :lol:
Irreligious's comment is stark raving mad.
:lol:
I've been called a pompous ass and a lot of other things, but stark raving mad is a new one.

Oh, it's just my comment that's stark raving mad. :( Bummer. I kinda liked the idea of embodying something so extreme.

Anyway, I challenge you both to try and organize a significant number of freethinkers around some sort of atheistic ideal (whatever that might be). If you've spent even a reasonable amount of time here (two days out of each month?), you'll have some idea of what you might be up against. You know what they say about atheists and herding cats.

Still, that doesn't mean we can't join other enlightened folk and rally around the Constitution or garden variety secularism as a means to beat back the threat of theocratic rule. I'm just arguing that atheism, in and of itself, may not be an adequate enough motivator.

[Professor Chaos]

I'm with Pan.

How's this for an "atheistic ideal:" Separation of Church and State.

Not many atheists against that notion, are there?

He said "common interest" not "identical interests."

How many people here are pro-life? 1? 2?

How many Republicans here?

How many atheists are against gay marriage? One-half of one percent?

[PanAtheist]

Common need, and a common sense, will act to inspire common aims, and to generate common endeavours.

Common endeavour, is not, per se, about one person leading other persons.
"Leadership" of one person by another, may happen on and off, if and when individuals share a new realization, and/or demonstrate a new way forward, and set an example.

Common endeavour needs but common need, and a sense of it, and a shared ability to act.
And we have these things.
Which is why common endeavour is already happening. (As pointed out, there are already various associations, and there is some favourable law).

As the sense of a common need increases, and a sense of our ability to meet that need increases, so there is almost bound to be an increase in common endeavour to meet that need.

[PanAtheist]

I'm with Pan.

:thumbsup:

Did you see how fast that was? :lol:

[Irreligious]

I'm with Pan.
So, who am I with? This guy: :wstupid: ?

How's this for an "atheistic ideal:" Separation of Church and State.
Well, I don't think many atheists would argue with it, but we don't have exclusive rights to that ideal.

He said "common interest" not "identical interests."
OK. So we are rallying around the Constitution then. Cool. But you still don't need to be an atheist to do that.

How many people here are pro-life? 1? 2?
Again, not an exclusively atheist ideal.

How many Republicans here?
Ditto on the anti-Repugs.

How many atheists are against gay marriage? One-half of one percent?
It's great that a lot of atheists are "clear" thinkers and recognize that they won't catch teh gay if gays are empowered to marry and divorce. A lot of my gay Christian friends already agree with you.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't or can't get together as atheists. Atheist organizations already exist. I'm just saying that, as individual atheists, you'll never get the bulk of us to succumb to some charismatic leader or governing body, which what makes us so hard to corral. And it's also what makes us so darned cute. ;)

[3Aeons]

It takes a strong person to overcome childhood indoctrination. Welcome Chris!

Thank you! And the reason that atheist don't get organized is because the only thing we really have in common, other then being intelligent, is that we don't believe in a god. We tend to go off and do our own thing, and live our quiet lives. Only thing that would bring us together would be a "witchhunt" of sorts, where the American Taliban starts arresting us because we aren't Jesus' homeboys/ homegirls.

[Professor Chaos]

So, who am I with? This guy: :wstupid: ?

Of course not! You're with the guy holding the "I'm with Awesome" sign. Unfortuntately, the :wawesome: smiley isn't working.


Well, I don't think many atheists would argue with it, but we don't have exclusive rights to that ideal.

I didn't say we did.


OK. So we are rallying around the Constitution then. Cool. But you still don't need to be an atheist to do that.

Again, I didn't say we did. Not sure how this is relevant anyways.


Again, not an exclusively atheist ideal.

Again, not saying that, and not relevant.


Ditto on the anti-Repugs.

Ditto on the saying that and relevancy stuff.


It's great that a lot of atheists are "clear" thinkers and recognize that they won't catch teh gay if gays are empowered to marry and divorce. A lot of my gay Christian friends already agree with you.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't or can't get together as atheists. Atheist organizations already exist. I'm just saying that, as individual atheists, you'll never get the bulk of us to succumb to some charismatic leader or governing body, which what makes us so hard to corral. And it's also what makes us so darned cute. ;)


Who's talking about charismatic leaders and governing bodies?

Anyways, I assume you understand that I wasn't agreeing with the "Irreligious is stark raving mad" part of Pan's post. :P

Just the notion that I hear often around here that we "have nothing in common but our lack of belief in God." I find that to be so simplistic and silly I laugh every time I see it.

Besides, you of all people should know that it's never a bad idea for an oppressed minority to try to organize.

[3Aeons]

But then we'd be part of a religion of sorts, wouldn't we?

No that wouldn't make us a religion of sorts. Do you consider animal rights activist a religion of sorts?

[PanAtheist]

Or people who build buildings and bridges?!
Or play music together?!
Or hold playgroups?!

As I said already about Irreligious's comment : stark raving mad!

[Irreligious]

Perhaps, this is all semantical.

I'm not saying atheists can't organize. To a degree, we've done that here, in this virtual setting. And, of course, there are organizations, like Atheist Alliance International (http://www.atheistalliance.org/) and American Atheists (http://www.atheists.org/) doing more practical advocacy work out there.

What I am talking about is grand scale organizing on the level of what the so-called Moral Majority ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Majority) did back in the 1980s or even Martin Luther King Jr.'s organization, the SCLC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Christian_Leadership_Conference), 20 years earlier.

Both had clearly political aims, but they rallied the troops around religion or so-called Christian principles.

There are plenty of secular principles around which we could be rallied (and they're also attractive to some theists-- nominal and otherwise-- and agnostics), but there are no set atheist principles, other than "I don't see any evidence of a god or gods."

[psychodiva]

there is also the National Secular Society in the UK_ very well organised, with political purpose and has a voice in Parliament- is regularly consulted by the media and organises letter campaigns (of which I am a part) and also protest campaigns

[Irreligious]

there is also the National Secular Society in the UK_ very well organised, with political purpose and has a voice in Parliament- is regularly consulted by the media and organises letter campaigns (of which I am a part) and also protest campaigns
On what do they place more emphasis: Secularism or atheism?

To me, at least, there's a difference.

[PanAtheist]

I am very pleased that the National Secular Society exists, and is doing the work that it does. I am grateful.

BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT
It falls far short of what's necessary:

[Irreligious]

Elucidate, my good friend. What, in your opinion, is required?

[PanAtheist]

Right up front (second paragraph) in the "About Us" page of the UK's National Secular Society.
Here (http://www.secularism.org.uk/about.html?CPID=19a65ec1aab159498d6844c5bb889a71).

We campaign for a society in which all are free to practise their faith, change it or not have one, according to their conscience.

Well fuck that!
It depends entirely what one's faith is, if it's to be okay for one to be "free to practise".
Do I have to spell that out?

I hope not!
I hope it is clear that there is something seriously wrong in the very mission of that society.

[psychodiva]

why do you say that? practicing a faith is no bother at all- it is up to the individual idiot what they want to believe or not- forcing it into politics and schools etc etc is what is wrong- that is what secularism is all about with the society

[psychodiva]

I am very pleased that the National Secular Society exists, and is doing the work that it does. I am grateful.

BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT
It falls far short of what's necessary:

yes it falls far short or having a truly heard voicein parliament and other govmt areas but it is getting there-what would you rather was there? when are you going to set it up?

[PanAtheist]

http://www.angelsreunited.com/Images/london_bombings.jpg

We campaign for a society in which all are free to practise their faith

[psychodiva]

whats that suposed to prove? or mean?

[PanAtheist]

whats that suposed to prove? or mean?
I aint going to spell it out.
I have added a quote as explanation (before you responded).

[Professor Chaos]

Right up front (second paragraph) in the "About Us" page of the UK's National Secular Society.
Here (http://www.secularism.org.uk/about.html?CPID=19a65ec1aab159498d6844c5bb889a71).



Well fuck that!
It depends entirely what one's faith is, if it's to be okay for one to be "free to practise".
Do I have to spell that out?

I hope not!
I hope it is clear that there is something seriously wrong in the very mission of that society.


Yes. They spelled "practice" wrong. :P

[psychodiva]

oh come on- you know that has nothing to do with campaigning for a secular society- that would be against the law were it perpetrated by anyone- could you fashion your argument a little better please? Most muslims, altho I detest the religion and its treatment of women specifically - do not buy into the crap perpetrated by these extremeists- yes they do support it in a way through their non- intervention but I will suport the right for anyone to believe whatever the fuck they want - as long as it doesn't impact on others- you think the secular society condones that crap? then you haven't done your research and your logic is flawed

[PanAtheist]

could you fashion your argument a little better please?

It is the NSS that had best fashion its mission, and mission statement, better.

I will suport the right for anyone to believe whatever the fuck they want

What does that mean? Nothing!
It's absolute mindless garbage! :D

Belief, real belief, just happens (or not).
Just like any kind of thought, it happens to us.
Rights! Rights have nothing to do with it! :lol:

[psychodiva]

ok- when you come up with an argument I'll argue it with you

[Sternwallow]

why do you say that? practicing a faith is no bother at all- it is up to the individual idiot what they want to believe or not- forcing it into politics and schools etc etc is what is wrong- that is what secularism is all about with the society
My faith demands that a virgin girl be thrown into the volcano every morning to keep Pele from getting angry. For me to do that, the community must supply me with a continuous stream of virgins.

[Sternwallow]

oh come on- you know that has nothing to do with campaigning for a secular society- that would be against the law were it perpetrated by anyone- could you fashion your argument a little better please? Most muslims, altho I detest the religion and its treatment of women specifically - do not buy into the crap perpetrated by these extremeists- yes they do support it in a way through their non- intervention but I will suport the right for anyone to believe whatever the fuck they want - as long as it doesn't impact on others- you think the secular society condones that crap? then you haven't done your research and your logic is flawed
Assuming it is permitted by law, does the Secular Society (SS) condone the regular evening sacrifice of a goat on the main street corner of every village?
Is making it illegal to read or possess the Koran a legitimate secular action consistent with the right to practice religion without hindrance?

[psychodiva]

I'm not going to argue for or about the secular society when you can as easily e-mail them to ask them what they thought when they put the things on their site- I am a member of seaid society as it is all we have until such time as something better comes into being - yes it could be better, yes they probably haven't thought everything through- but who does? maybe they trust people to not tease out the sillyness in absolutely everything they say?
This could go on for hours and just end up being really silly with me saying- 'of course if its against the law'... etc etc- and you coming back with something equally fecetious - so lets just drop it now eh?

[Orcus Dreki]

It takes a strong person to overcome childhood indoctrination. Welcome Chris!

or drugs, apparently

But then we'd be part of a religion of sorts, wouldn't we?

if your definition of religion is an "organised group" then yes, otherwise no

whats that suposed to prove? or mean?

he was just saying that not all religions should be allowed to be practised.

oh come on- you know that has nothing to do with campaigning for a secular society- that would be against the law were it perpetrated by anyone- could you fashion your argument a little better please? Most muslims, altho I detest the religion and its treatment of women specifically - do not buy into the crap perpetrated by these extremeists- yes they do support it in a way through their non- intervention but I will suport the right for anyone to believe whatever the fuck they want - as long as it doesn't impact on others- you think the secular society condones that crap? then you haven't done your research and your logic is flawed

Assuming it is permitted by law, does the Secular Society (SS) condone the regular evening sacrifice of a goat on the main street corner of every village?
Is making it illegal to read or possess the Koran a legitimate secular action consistent with the right to practice religion without hindrance?

come on people use a little common sense, believing in a secular society doesn't mean you condone acts of murder, or abuse or anything else just because someone believes in it. all the society wants is the freedom to believe what they want to believe, free of prosecution and therefore they extend that curtsy to other belief systems.

starting a witch hunt is not the answer, it will only made religious folk more resilient and stronger. not to mention giving them ample reason to try outlawing atheism, or brand it as 'evil'.

if atheists want a world free of religion risking an backlash is a bad idea. instead they should work on improving education, promoting science and scientific methods and rational behaviour.

this atheists can "organise" themselves for. i don't think it is fair to say that being an atheist is just a non-belief in god, this more than that, it's a belief in critical evaluation and rational thinking. That we can promote together as a mass group.

if you want to call organising for that message "a religion" than so be it, it's just arguing semantics anyway.

[Irreligious]

if your definition of religion is an "organised group" then yes, otherwise no
What are the tenets of atheism? What do atheists believe (not what they don't believe)?

Are most atheists anti-religious, benignly tolerant of religion or mostly complacent about religion in a free society? Do you even know?

What is the most effective appeal for coalescing the most atheists? Maybe you know.

There's nothing stopping a group of individual atheists who share a preponderance of common viewpoints from organizing around the same goals, but what exactly would those be? The eradication of all superstitious thinking from the globe? What?

[ILOVEJESUS]

But then we'd be part of a religion of sorts, wouldn't we?

As secularists already, we don't need to do that. In the U.S., we have a Constitution that's supposed to protect us from the excesses of these people. We've got to be firm about that. That's the best we can do, really. Otherwise, all the various cults that exist out there have every right to their delusions. And, as for them hearing any other voices but their own, well, don't hold your breath. Most will not listen, no matter how loudly you shout.

And welcome to the forum.

i think most atheists accept that an organisation maybe of free thinkers would be a most beneficial idea , if not only to add free thought and reasoned thinking to a public that has very few groups of the kind to listen to and be influencd by.

[Orcus Dreki]

What are the tenets of atheism? What do atheists believe (not what they don't believe)?

Are most atheists anti-religious, benignly tolerant of religion or mostly complacent about religion in a free society? Do you even know?

What is the most effective appeal for coalescing the most atheists? Maybe you know.

There's nothing stopping a group of individual atheists who share a preponderance of common viewpoints from organizing around the same goals, but what exactly would those be? The eradication of all superstitious thinking from the globe? What?

the problem is with the word atheist, literally meaning non-theist, however most people agree that even though we are highly diverse people, we still have common threads to rally behind. as ILOVEJESUS above me said, freethinking is one of them, or more importantly rational thought. how many atheists don't value rational thought highly? i don't think i have ever met one who doesn't. therefore atheists on that principle alone could begin to promote a system that supports such a concept, where knowledge is highly regarded and given to all and where debating and scepticism is rewarded. Rationalism is just one common ideal that atheists have, i'm sure us few atheists on this forum could brainstorm more that would be appropriate to most atheists.

we are slowly getting there, Richard Dawkins has an organisation already and so does Sam Harris. we just need to unify all atheist to make us an imposing political force in the world.



Be the change we wish to see in the world - Gandhi

[a different tim]

Based on this forum, organising atheists = herding cats.

[Orcus Dreki]

Based on this forum, organising atheists = herding cats.

nobody said it would be easy, but it is by no means impossible. wouldn't you a different tim fight for a better world or at least give your support?

[a different tim]

Good luck getting this lot to agree on what a better world is. We can't even agree on what atheism is. ILJ think's it's OK to relabel the universe "God", for example. :P

Don't get me wrong. I think that the fact that atheists disagree on almost everything else apart from atheism is healthy.

I'm quite happy to cheer on the likes of Dawkins and Dennett from the sidelines, and support specific causes like the fund the ACLU put up for Kitzmiller v Dover, but an atheist political programme? Where would you start?

[Orcus Dreki]

Good luck getting this lot to agree on what a better world is. We can't even agree on what atheism is. ILJ think's it's OK to relabel the universe "God", for example. :P

Don't get me wrong. I think that the fact that atheists disagree on almost everything else apart from atheism is healthy.

I'm quite happy to cheer on the likes of Dawkins and Dennett from the sidelines, and support specific causes like the fund the ACLU put up for Kitzmiller v Dover, but an atheist political programme? Where would you start?

can you at least agree you would like better educated people in the world, more political emphasis on science and a wider awareness on proper scientific method.

or are you happy with irrational believes ruling your political leaders?

[a different tim]

I would. But I'll bet you can find someone who calls themself an atheist somewhere who will disagree with one of those. (Probably a free market nutcase who thinks that political emphasis on science is a bad thing and we should just let the private sector get on with it).

And I would rather have a liberal political leader who subscribes to an irrational belief than a dictatorial one who doesn't.

The problem, I think, is that there are certainly political programmes I would subscribe to. Education and science would be an important part of such a programme to me. But there's more to a political programme than that - is there any such thing as an atheist foreign policy or economics policy? I don't think so although I'm open to suggestion.

Now sure, there's some stuff we can (mostly) agree on, but it's on an ad hoc basis. It's pressure group stuff, to be signed up to as and when an issue arises, if we want to. I'm happy to cheer on Dawkins when he takes on the religious establishment in the UK, for example, but I know of plenty of atheists who think he comes across as dogmatic and arrogant and does more harm than good.

[Orcus Dreki]

I would. But I'll bet you can find someone who calls themself an atheist somewhere who will disagree with one of those. (Probably a free market nutcase who thinks that political emphasis on science is a bad thing and we should just let the private sector get on with it).

i agree with you, but i never said we need 100% support as long as we can get a large enough group for political leaders to take us seriously, that will be ok

And I would rather have a liberal political leader who subscribes to an irrational belief than a dictatorial one who doesn't.

why would atheists try to destroy democracy?

The problem, I think, is that there are certainly political programmes I would subscribe to. Education and science would be an important part of such a programme to me. But there's more to a political programme than that - is there any such thing as an atheist foreign policy or economics policy? I don't think so although I'm open to suggestion.

yes but as a group we don't need to dictate a entire political program, if we identify one or two things that we will vote for, we can pressure political leaders for change. think about how abortion is still a hot topic, the only reason for this is a large enough % of the population will cast their vote with politicians who consider abolishing it. Thats all we have to do, gather the faithful into a large enough group that the few things we do agree on become politically viable.

Now sure, there's some stuff we can (mostly) agree on, but it's on an ad hoc basis. It's pressure group stuff, to be signed up to as and when an issue arises, if we want to. I'm happy to cheer on Dawkins when he takes on the religious establishment in the UK, for example, but I know of plenty of atheists who think he comes across as dogmatic and arrogant and does more harm than good.

not really, better education is always an issue and so are many other issues. not to mention that temporary issues could help strengthen our political power, since if we win one small issue it can start a snowball effect showing off our political resolve to political leaders forcing them to take notice.

[ubs]

why would atheists try to destroy democracy? Atheists desiring the power of a fascist regime are at the root of every theocracy.

Obviously the Pope and the President of the Mormon Church know that they don't talk to God, as does every witch doctor, fortune teller and religious leader since the beginning of time.

If they believed in ANY God, they sure wouldn't be pushing a false one.

[Orcus Dreki]

Atheists desiring the power of a fascist regime are at the root of every theocracy.

Obviously the Pope and the President of the Mormon Church know that they don't talk to God, as does every witch doctor, fortune teller and religious leader since the beginning of time.

If they believed in ANY God, they sure wouldn't be pushing a false one.

i'm not sure if your joking or not but i don't think that's entirely fair, at least it's likely that they were religious at least at some point in their life.

regardless of the validity of your claim it can be said that atheists as a group aren't interested in world domination. i can't speak for individuals though

[ubs]

regardless of the validity of your claim it can be said that atheists as a group aren't interested in world domination.

The only thing that you can say about atheists as a group is that they don't beleive in God. Your view is screwed by the homogeneity of the online groups and your ambitions fired up by the percentages, but as ADT pointed out, the group lacks political coherence.

And my statement about theocracies being run by atheists was not a joke. How could it be otherwise?

[a different tim]

why would atheists try to destroy democracy?

*shrug* some atheists might. Marxists, for example, aren't big on bourgeois democracy.

And "gathering the faithful" :\
I mean, I know you meant it as a lighthearted analogy but uniting this way isn't something atheists are good at in my experience, because we're such a heterogenous group.


For the rest, UBS covers it, I think.

[nkb]

why would atheists try to destroy democracy?
People who don't believe in a punishment in the afterlife, but also haven't been raised with decent moral values, have no incentive to please anyone but themselves.

yes but as a group we don't need to dictate a entire political program, if we identify one or two things that we will vote for, we can pressure political leaders for change. think about how abortion is still a hot topic, the only reason for this is a large enough % of the population will cast their vote with politicians who consider abolishing it. Thats all we have to do, gather the faithful into a large enough group that the few things we do agree on become politically viable.
But, what keeps you from joining those causes on a case-by-case basis? I have a feeling that a lot of pro-choice people are probably atheists.

By the way, even here on this forum we have at least one atheist who is anti-choice pro-life (StillSurviving).

That's the inherent problem with trying to organize atheists. We generally have very diverse views on everything under the sun, and since there already are organizations that tackle the issues we feel strongly about, we have the option, and the tendency, I think, to pick things a la carte.

not really, better education is always an issue and so are many other issues. not to mention that temporary issues could help strengthen our political power, since if we win one small issue it can start a snowball effect showing off our political resolve to political leaders forcing them to take notice.
It would be great to show a united front, especially when it comes to getting religion out of government. The way to accomplish that is to join and get active in the existing groups that are already fighting for the continued separation of church and state.

[Orcus Dreki]

The only thing that you can say about atheists as a group is that they don't beleive in God. Your view is screwed by the homogeneity of the online groups and your ambitions fired up by the percentages, but as ADT pointed out, the group lacks political coherence.

all i'm saying is that most atheists have certain characteristics and common threads. we are diverse but that does not mean we cannot be united by those common beliefs. it really is a numbers game i'm not interested in the minority of atheists who don't like science or rational thinking because they're just that a minority.

And my statement about theocracies being run by atheists was not a joke. How could it be otherwise?

lots of ways. a belief in god doesn't make you a good person and a fear in hell may not be enough for people to overcome power hungriness. but my bet is that they simply delude themselves into thinking they are acting on gods word.

*shrug* some atheists might. Marxists, for example, aren't big on bourgeois democracy.

there are two things wrong with this argument. one is that Marx did not decry democracy overall, he decried bourgeois democracy on the belief that if there is class separation people can never be truly free. there is a difference. second if an atheist believes we should destroy democracy it does not suggest that Atheists want to destroy democracy. now i know i haven't done extensive surveys on the subject so i am making an unproven claim but i don't think it is unreasonable to believe that most of the atheists today would still want some sort of democracy.

And "gathering the faithful" :\
I mean, I know you meant it as a lighthearted analogy but uniting this way isn't something atheists are good at in my experience, because we're such a heterogenous group.

i believe this mentality is the actual problem. this debilitating idea that atheists are so different that we shouldn't even try to form a coherent group. i don't think it is impossible but views that nobody should try are damaging to progress on the matter.


People who don't believe in a punishment in the afterlife, but also haven't been raised with decent moral values, have no incentive to please anyone but themselves.

this is more a nature vs nurture argument but we do have certain innate abilities to understand moral issues, so this statement isn't entirely true.

Regardless, i'm not really sure where you are going with this argument. are you saying that Atheists are immoral? because i think that it is the contrary, atheists are one of the only groups of people who actually think for themselves on the subject and therefore can probably achieve a higher understanding of morals

But, what keeps you from joining those causes on a case-by-case basis?

who said i don't? In fact i am a member of several organisations who do just that. the issue at hand is that there are a lot of different organisations with the same ideals. then instead of uniting together each organisation works independently, it speaks for itself that this is a bad strategy.

I have a feeling that a lot of pro-choice people are probably atheists.

so you admit that most atheist have common views on certain subjects? plus your claim doesn't make statistical sense, only 13% of the people in the US are atheists, while there is a far larger % who are pro-choice.


By the way, even here on this forum we have at least one atheist who is anti-choice pro-life (StillSurviving).

yes i'm not denying this. my point is that he is probably in the minority. also i never stated we should promote pro-choice, i understand that they may be atheists against this, all I've been saying is there are issues where it would be so unlikely for an atheist to disagree with or the % of atheists who disagree are so small, we can effectively say all atheists believe it. then on those issues we could rally.


It would be great to show a united front, especially when it comes to getting religion out of government. The way to accomplish that is to join and get active in the existing groups that are already fighting for the continued separation of church and state.

i agree, the problem is existent groups are themselves disunited. which is unnecessary for they pretty much want the same thing. my point is, and only is, that a united front has greater impact on political leaders and therefore we should strive to unite ourselves.

[a different tim]

if an atheist believes we should destroy democracy it does not suggest that Atheists want to destroy democracy

That wasn't what I said. What I said was that I would rather have a liberal, democratic leader even if they were a theist than a dictatorial one even though they might be an atheist.

You then asked me why there would be anti-democratic atheists. I gave you the example of Marxists, who haven't exactly worked out democratic, bourgeois or otherwise, whenever they got into power. You don't need to lecture me on what Marx said - I even specifically mentioned bourgeois democracy.

I believe this mentality is the actual problem. this debilitating idea that atheists are so different that we shouldn't even try to form a coherent group. i don't think it is impossible but views that nobody should try are damaging to progress on the matter.

People do form coherent groups. They just don't do so under some all encompassing atheist banner, which is, I think, as it should be. I have no intention of being coopted into any political programme just because it's "atheist". Show me the small print and I might sign up.

Or I might not.

[ubs]

lots of ways. a belief in god doesn't make you a good person and a fear in hell may not be enough for people to overcome power hungriness. but my bet is that they simply delude themselves into thinking they are acting on gods word..

What seems more reasonable to you Orcus? That someone scizophrenic enough to hear voices is somehow magically high functioning enough to run a multi million dollar organization OR that the operators are con men, and, necessarily in this situation, atheist.

who said i don't? In fact i am a member of several organisations who do just that. the issue at hand is that there are a lot of different organisations with the same ideals. then instead of uniting together each organisation works independently, it speaks for itself that this is a bad strategy..

It isn't a bad strategy if the members are getting something from the group they feel will be comprimised by a super imposed political agenda.

Most adults have spent at least a little time working for a political organization, and those groups have a very distinct flavor that much more closely resembles work than play. Perhaps the problem is that after a week of work, your members want to shoot the shit with each other rather than taking a second job.

And perhaps that need for play is greater than their need to dial for dollars, or dial for issues, or wave banners, or be dragged around by cuffs, or have endless humorless melodramatic conversations about the state of the world, or get into a endless pissing contest about what is the most important thing, or who is the most "atheist," or who is most qualified to lead the group.

my point is, and only is, that a united front has greater impact on political leaders and therefore we should strive to unite ourselves.

So do it on an issue by issue basis. Why try to organize us under such a loose title? Imagine the impracticality of politically organizing drummers or auto mechanics. That is what you are proposing.

[Orcus Dreki]

That wasn't what I said. What I said was that I would rather have a liberal, democratic leader even if they were a theist than a dictatorial one even though they might be an atheist.

that really goes without saying. all i meant was that supporting atheists wont lead to a totalitarian society.

You then asked me why there would be anti-democratic atheists. I gave you the example of Marxists, who haven't exactly worked out democratic, bourgeois or otherwise, whenever they got into power. You don't need to lecture me on what Marx said - I even specifically mentioned bourgeois democracy.

no need to get upset, but just because Marxists didn't work out democracy doesn't mean they were anti-democratic therefore Marxists aren't really a good example of anti-democratic atheists. my point is that because Atheists can be anti-democratic doesn't mean that an atheist organisation will be anti-democratic.

People do form coherent groups. They just don't do so under some all encompassing atheist banner, which is, I think, as it should be. I have no intention of being coopted into any political programme just because it's "atheist". Show me the small print and I might sign up.

Or I might not.

I think we are arguing at cross purposes here and perhaps that's my fault for not making my position clear. i do not expect people to join an atheist group then forego any rational thought and blindly follow them.

the truth is i don't care what the group is called, the banner could be Smizmar for all i care. my argument is that we should form some sort of loose group so our collective ideals and beliefs are heard. because i fear, that if we don't the ability of religious organisations to form collectives will mean they will always have more political power. i just think we should strive to settle our minor differences in order to gain the political power of a collective.

[ubs]

the truth is i don't care what the group is called, the banner could be Smizmar for all i care. my argument is that we should form some sort of loose group so our collective ideals and beliefs are heard. because i fear, that if we don't the ability of religious organizations to form collectives will mean they will always have more political power. i just think we should strive to settle our minor differences in order to gain the political power of a collective.

Oh I see. Well, you will never be able to compete with their organizations in size in breadth unless you can get atheists to tithe. I still think short term ventures on an issue by issue basis are a better bet for gaining supporters and facing a large ancient organization. Don't try to be them! Focus on their weaknesses. They're big and therefore lack speed and stealth. Hive mind vs the blob.

[Kate]

The Blob rules. (http://www.thecolonialtheatre.com/category/events/blobfest/)

[ubs]

The Blob rules. (http://www.thecolonialtheatre.com/category/events/blobfest/)

Me too! Funniest horror film ever. I own the tape.

[Kate]

I'm thinking we need to have the Summer '09 RA Meetup in Phoenixville.

[Orcus Dreki]

What seems more reasonable to you Orcus? That someone scizophrenic enough to hear voices is somehow magically high functioning enough to run a multi million dollar organization OR that the operators are con men, and, necessarily in this situation, atheist.

look, i'm not arguing that they are defiantly not con men. however you are underestimating the power of self denial. what about someone who truly believes that their personal thoughts are inspired by god. they are no more schizophrenic then the larger religious majority.

i just find it hard to believe that a man would be the cause of the deaths of millions of people when doing so is without gain. this is exactly what the pope did when he decreed that aids ridden Africans shouldn't use condoms. he could of just as easily said that god in this case wants you to preserve life and he wouldn't of lost any power or money doing so.

does that mean i think all religious leaders truly believe what they say? no, especially Co$ leaders and many new religions.

you're forgetting that there are a lot of very capable people out there who are fiercely religious, being religious does not mean you are crazy.

It isn't a bad strategy if the members are getting something from the group they feel will be comprimised by a super imposed political agenda.

how many groups are out there that don't have some sort political agenda? or who don't want to influence the world in some way? i would say a very small amount.

Most adults have spent at least a little time working for a political organization, and those groups have a very distinct flavor that much more closely resembles work than play. Perhaps the problem is that after a week of work, your members want to shoot the shit with each other rather than taking a second job.

nobody really has to do anything but vote, will it help if people do become active? yes but you don't have to.

So do it on an issue by issue basis. Why try to organize us under such a loose title?

because even a loose title will give us power that a disunified approach wouldn't.

Imagine the impracticality of politically organizing drummers or auto mechanics. That is what you are proposing.

that's not at all correct, because as atheist we do have common beliefs or at least most of us do. we can unite on those

[Orcus Dreki]

Oh I see. Well, you will never be able to compete with their organizations in size in breadth unless you can get atheists to tithe. I still think short term ventures on an issue by issue basis are a better bet for gaining supporters and facing a large ancient organization. Don't try to be them! Focus on their weaknesses. They're big and therefore lack speed and stealth. Hive mind vs the blob.


who says we can't be both?

we could have an organisation and still do things individually

[ubs]

I'm thinking we need to have the Summer '09 RA Meetup in Phoenixville.

Or Vegas. It will be hot as hell in both places, but because of that really cheap. I love that plan.

[ubs]

look, i'm not arguing that they are defiantly not con men. however you are underestimating the power of self denial. what about someone who truly believes that their personal thoughts are inspired by god.

We're talking about different things. I agree that religious does not mean that they need to be institutionalized. I'm saying that to run the organization or better yet to found a religion takes more than fuzzy feeling. It takes long term planning and a gift for duplicity.

i just find it hard to believe that a man would be the cause of the deaths of millions of people when doing so is without gain.

Without Gain!?! You call the breeding of additional tithers no gain? Increasing their numbers is what the Catholic Church does! And it is very profitable.

how many groups are out there that don't have some sort political agenda? or who don't want to influence the world in some way? i would say a very small amount.

And I would say most. Groups form so that people can enjoy community. They might want world peace, but it's with the same commitment as miss america.

nobody really has to do anything but vote, will it help if people do become active? yes but you don't have to..

Great so just publicize the issues and let us decide.

that's not at all correct, because as atheist we do have common beliefs or at least most of us do. we can unite on those

Again I disagree. The NRL atheist organizations that I have belonged to both splintered over political differences that had NOTHING to do with non beleif in Gawd. And now that I think about it, that splintering came after some Johnny Jackass got the idea that we should become politically involved.

[Orcus Dreki]

well we clearly disagree, we might as well stop arguing or we will just go around and around. one or two things though.

Without Gain!?! You call the breeding of additional tithers no gain? Increasing their numbers is what the Catholic Church does! And it is very profitable.

i doubt they thought about it that much. why would an old pope care about the church after he dies when he is an atheist? it's not like they have children. breeding people will only benefit(possibly benefit) future generations, they have to grow to at least 18 before they give money.

And I would say most. Groups form so that people can enjoy community. They might want world peace, but it's with the same commitment as miss america.

how could you believe that? groups form on an agenda any sense of community is a by-product.

anyway that's all, i can't be bothered arguing any more. most of this is just our opinions anyway since we don't have any empirical evidence

[Orcus Dreki]

one last thing. the edit button disappeared so i'm posting this separately

Great so just publicize the issues and let us decide.

But how will political leaders know that you will vote on those issues? my fear is that if there is no organisation, political leaders will not care. sure you might vote against them but unless they know why they wont do anything about it.

[nkb]

Regardless, i'm not really sure where you are going with this argument. are you saying that Atheists are immoral?
No, not at all.
You were asking why atheists wouldn't want democracy. I gave you an example.
Atheists, by definition, are not necessarily moral people, since that depends heavily on your upbringing, your mental state (whether you are a sociopath or not) and a slew of other factors.

So, if you are an atheist, and you happen to be missing some important moral values (for whatever reason), what would stop you from doing whatever you want?

This in no way implies anything about the general atheist population.

so you admit that most atheist have common views on certain subjects?
Sure, nobody is disputing that.
But, the problem is that even though each individual subject may have most atheists behind it, it's not always the same subset behind each issue.
Once you start combining issues on one platform, you start shedding atheists that don't agree on all of the issues.
plus your claim doesn't make statistical sense, only 13% of the people in the US are atheists, while there is a far larger % who are pro-choice.
Not what I was saying at all. Read my comment again, I said a lot of atheists are pro-choice, not that they represent the majority of pro-choicers.

[a different tim]

i just think we should strive to settle our minor differences in order to gain the political power of a collective.

But the differences aren't always minor. Stillsurviving, or the original Raving Atheist, are on opposite sides of the abortion issue to mine. A free marketeer like Cap'n Awesome is completely at odds with me over economic and social policy. I understand what you're saying, but I don't think atheists have enough in common besides atheism to form such a collective.

And I'm happy with that. I think the thing is about atheists is that if we do have one thing in common, it's that we tend to be skeptics, and it seems to me that this very skepticism makes us resistant to collectivisation.

[Eva]

orcus, you edit option ends 30 minutes after you post....

[Orcus Dreki]

No, not at all.
You were asking why atheists wouldn't want democracy. I gave you an example.
Atheists, by definition, are not necessarily moral people, since that depends heavily on your upbringing, your mental state (whether you are a sociopath or not) and a slew of other factors.

So, if you are an atheist, and you happen to be missing some important moral values (for whatever reason), what would stop you from doing whatever you want?

This in no way implies anything about the general atheist population.

yes i agree with you but i'm trying to generalise Atheists, it may be impossible but i don't think it is.


Sure, nobody is disputing that.
But, the problem is that even though each individual subject may have most atheists behind it, it's not always the same subset behind each issue.
Once you start combining issues on one platform, you start shedding atheists that don't agree on all of the issues.

exactly, so we agree that we want to sell, just not on the price. the problem is not that we can't group together just that we need a loose enough ideal to follow. if we can generalise the platform enough we might be able to minimise the collateral damage. i don't for a second believe we can get all Atheist aboard, but we can group together the rest.

Not what I was saying at all. Read my comment again, I said a lot of atheists are pro-choice, not that they represent the majority of pro-choicers.

fair enough, my apology

But the differences aren't always minor. Stillsurviving, or the original Raving Atheist, are on opposite sides of the abortion issue to mine. A free marketeer like Cap'n Awesome is completely at odds with me over economic and social policy. I understand what you're saying, but I don't think atheists have enough in common besides atheism to form such a collective.

true, my argument is that we steer clear of issues where Atheists are divided and stick with issues where the large majority believe in. i think there are at least a few that fit that criteria.

And I'm happy with that. I think the thing is about atheists is that if we do have one thing in common, it's that we tend to be skeptics, and it seems to me that this very skepticism makes us resistant to collectivisation.

resistant maybe, but not impossible and i think it is well worth us trying because the benefits far outweigh the cons. however i don't agree that Atheists only have one thing in common.

See it is my belief, based on talking to atheists, is that most Atheist have a similar biology. My hypothesis is that out of the five personality traits conscientiousness, openness, extroversion, agreeableness and neuroticism. that most Atheist would score high in Openness and low in Conscientiousness. Of course i don't have the surveys to back it up but it is probably a safe bet. They may even have similar scores in the other personality traits. Since these personality traits also determine political leanings we can conclude that if my original hypothesis is correct then Atheist would also have similar political views.

This is highly generalised though, so there will be exceptions but on a whole these exceptions can be seen as a small %. My reasoning for this is it takes a special kind of person to become an atheist in a highly religious world. Someone who has high scores in Conscientiousness and low in openness i doubt would be able to do it.

orcus, you edit option ends 30 minutes after you post....

thanks i only mentioned it so people know that i didn't double post intentionally.

[Eva]

if you double post, i can delete the extra post for you....no biggie.

[skribb]

as atheist we do have common beliefs or at least most of us do. we can unite on those

Thing is, atheists have no beliefs.

[a different tim]

that most Atheist would score high in Openness and low in Conscientiousness.

Not me. I score the opposite, for whatever the online tests are worth. Why should an atheist not be conscientoius?

[Sternwallow]

If you are really religious, you really are crazy no matter how competent you may be in other aspects of life.

[Orcus Dreki]

Not me. I score the opposite, for whatever the online tests are worth. Why should an atheist not be conscientoius?

their love of order, their need for control and a need for set morals. it is their likelihood to follow rules that makes a conscientious person less likely to break away from the comfort of religious dogma

and openness is self explanatory, just out of interest a different tim what are your political leanings at the moment?

BTW: i just did a internet test and scored low on everything, somehow i don't think they are too accurate. i was actually called conventional

[a different tim]

it is their likelihood to follow rules that makes a conscientious person less likely to break away from the comfort of religious dogma

Not at all. I broke away from religious dogma by following the logical rules of enquiry that were taught to me in science class. You seem to be conflating "conscientious" with "dogmatic" in some way. I consider conscientiousness to be a good trait. It means if someone agrees to do something I can generally trust them to get it done, for example, or in a colleague it means they'll do their job properly so I don't have to put in extra time sorting out their mess.

My political leanings are democratic socialist. I work for the state, teaching teenagers, paid for by your tax money*, and am proud to do so.

*Well, maybe not yours if you aren't UK based. But somebody's tax money.

[ubs]

Orcus, why not just join an already existing secular group, like the Humanists?

[Orcus Dreki]

Not at all. I broke away from religious dogma by following the logical rules of enquiry that were taught to me in science class. You seem to be conflating "conscientious" with "dogmatic" in some way. I consider conscientiousness to be a good trait. It means if someone agrees to do something I can generally trust them to get it done, for example, or in a colleague it means they'll do their job properly so I don't have to put in extra time sorting out their mess.

i should of been more specific, a persons love of order and a need for rules(including set moral rules). these are two separate traits that fall under Conscientious that i believe disallow or discourage atheism and they also have a positive correlation with conservative political views. the traits you mentioned wouldn't have an impact on either.

My political leanings are democratic socialist. I work for the state, teaching teenagers, paid for by your tax money*, and am proud to do so.

this is the view that i share, and the view that most atheists i meet also share (I'd say 70% to 80%) based entirely on personal experience so its not a credible survey. i meet very few hard line republicans or far right-wing atheists. they exist, but my point is they are small in % compared to the larger Atheist population.

i could be wrong though, as i said i based my hypothesis mostly on personal experience.

regardless i'm not saying we should form a political group on democratic socialism because that's far to specific, but how many Atheists would oppose promoting science and rational thought?

i could be wrong but i have never meet an Atheist who would oppose such central atheist ideals and yes you might give me a few examples but they would be in a significant minority

Orcus, why not just join an already existing secular group, like the Humanists?

read my posts, i'm a member of a few, my problem is how disunited they are.

[nkb]

exactly, so we agree that we want to sell, just not on the price. the problem is not that we can't group together just that we need a loose enough ideal to follow. if we can generalise the platform enough we might be able to minimise the collateral damage. i don't for a second believe we can get all Atheist aboard, but we can group together the rest.
Well, that's the issue, isn't it?

Once you start generalizing enough to try to include a significant enough percentage of atheists, you are left with a wishy-washy agenda that will eventually get back down to non-belief.

Maybe I am being unclear in what I stated. Here is an example, with made up percentages:

Issue 1: Abortion rights - 90% of atheists are pro-choice.
Issue 2: Socialism/welfare - 90% of atheists are for helping the poor.

But, the 10% in issue 1 may very possibly be part of the 90% in issue 2, and vice versa, so you might already be down to 80% of all atheists.

The more issues you add to the "atheist platform", the higher the likelihood of a large number of atheists not agreeing with all of them.

[Orcus Dreki]

Well, that's the issue, isn't it?

Once you start generalizing enough to try to include a significant enough percentage of atheists, you are left with a wishy-washy agenda that will eventually get back down to non-belief.

Maybe I am being unclear in what I stated. Here is an example, with made up percentages:

Issue 1: Abortion rights - 90% of atheists are pro-choice.
Issue 2: Socialism/welfare - 90% of atheists are for helping the poor.

But, the 10% in issue 1 may very possibly be part of the 90% in issue 2, and vice versa, so you might already be down to 80% of all atheists.

The more issues you add to the "atheist platform", the higher the likelihood of a large number of atheists not agreeing with all of them.

the issue(s) that we fight on aren't important, or to rephrase aren't the main objective.

the goal of this is to have a show of unity, real or perceived, to make atheists a real political threat.

i should probably elaborate why i see this as a problem. currently almost every government in the world ignores Atheist completely, now logically this makes little sense because as Atheists we are predisposed to rational thought and therefore policies we would vote for are most likely to be beneficial. regardless politicians still completely ignore our views in favour of more irrational religious views. why is this so? because religions can show significant unity, a politician knows that if he ticks off a religious group he's lost a massive amount of votes. on the other hand he has little, if not no incentive to care about Atheist views or secular views. therefore the only solution to this problem that i see is to demonstrate a significant show of unity. the issue isn't really important for that, what's important is that we pick one that a large majority of Atheists would back.

my main goal of all this is to create fear around the "playing the religious card" tactic that politicians use today. both Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton constantly tell us how much they pray, then they ignore invites for debates or to give speeches to Atheist organisations while jumping on a chance to speak at a religious one. Tony Blair was the same and so was John Howard and Kevin Rudd in Australia, they took time out specifically to talk to the Christian community to reassure them that they will be making Christian policies (both of them in an essentially bipartisan election).

we need to put fear into politicians who use such a tactic and give political power to the Atheists.

people have repeated constantly, that organising Atheist = Herding cats, i understand it wouldn't be easy but you can get cats where you want them with a juicy piece of meat. the meat is the political issue, while the goal is political power.

[ubs]

i should probably elaborate why i see this as a problem. currently almost every government in the world ignores Atheist completely, now logically this makes little sense because as Atheists we are predisposed to rational thought and therefore policies we would vote for are most likely to be beneficial.

You're assuming that a politician's first objective is civil service. I think most politicians seek first to gain and maintain power and that makes theists of every flavor preferable to atheists because they beleive things without proof and once committed to a concept would sooner die than admit they made a mistake.

Theists are the dream voters and you can increase their numbers and lower taxes simply by withdrawing quality education.

Atheists in comparison are a nightmare, critical thinkers refusing to commit to any ideology and turning on a dime when a better solution comes along or compromise wreaks of a politician's personal agenda.

the issue(s) that we fight on aren't important, or to rephrase aren't the main objective.

the goal of this is to have a show of unity, real or perceived, to make atheists a real political threat.
.....
we need to put fear into politicians who use such a tactic and give political power to the Atheists.

Orcus, I'm sure that you mean well, but this looks like gathering power for power's sake.

[a different tim]

See, I'm not sure he means well. I think I'm seeing some wild and unjustified generalisations about how atheists think being used to make claims for the superiority of atheists' political positions just because they are atheist.

it is their likelihood to follow rules that makes a conscientious person less likely to break away from the comfort of religious dogma
currently almost every government in the world ignores Atheist completely, now logically this makes little sense because as Atheists we are predisposed to rational thought and therefore policies we would vote for are most likely to be beneficial.

I parse this as "I'm unconventional, me. Boring people who follow rules and like order can't be proper atheists. Atheists - by which I mean atheists who think like me - are smarter than everyone else, so our opinion - and by extension, my opinion - counts for more and should count for more politically".

So sorry, Orkus, but no. I'll do my best to judge political questions as they come according to the evidence as best I can.

Meh. Maybe I'm reading too much into it. In which case my apologies.

[Kate]

http://sc.tri-bit.com/images/b/b5/4TOMPDIT4JPOCP767WKWH6NNE6WTGZGT.jpg

[a different tim]

That's what Richard Dawkins looks like when he's off camera, you know.

[Kate]

No, sir! He is ADORABLE!!! AND he wears a pink shirt. I love him.

You're a meanie! :mad:

[a different tim]

I've seen him. He lopes through the streets of Oxford, eating Christian babies and howling at the moon. If anyone objects he just hisses at them like a raptor.

Citation needed

[Lily]

Somehow, that conjures up disturbing images of David Thewlis ...

[ubs]

See, I'm not sure he means well.

One group to rule them all, and in the darkness.....bind them!

[dogpet]

Atheist is what you are not, not what you are. I know non-deluded folk who I would cross the street to avoid & who's political views would make me retch. I wish we didn't need a word for what we are not.

[Kate]

http://www.petacatalog.org/images/300-STU159.jpg

[MedallionMan]

Welcome Chris, from an Aussie atheist who has only recently joined this forum.

You have expressed my feelings exactly. I also feel the need for Free Thinkers to become organised, but that is a very difficult thing to do, without any existing hierarchy.

I hope you enjoy your stay and share some pearls of wisdom with us.

http://ravingatheists.com/forum/images/icons/thumbsup.gif

[Orcus Dreki]

fair enough, i can see that my opinion is not shared

but a different tim i hope you are not disillusioned enough to believe that a single vote in a democracy has any relevance. Groups have power in political circles not individuals. you will probably vote all your life and not get anywhere.

i'm also rather surprised at the lack of pride Atheists have on this forum. i make no apology Atheists are better than theists, full stop.

i would much rather entrust power to Atheists than theists, and i fear in the current political climate that's the only two choices we have. it has become a Black or White decision, choose the side of Atheists and we live in a world based in critical evaluation and rational thinking, chose to do nothing or the side of the theists and we welcome a new dark age.

[MedallionMan]

fair enough, i can see that my opinion is not shared

Hi Orcus Dreki,
I share your views about motivating atheists to action as a more powerful group, and I see the humour in the Rapture deception, but when you mention poisoning people with cyanide, I have no way of knowing for sure if you're some deluded homicidal maniac, and would actually kill people in that scenario, or whether you're just making a joke, in which case, I didn't get the joke. At all!

It just doesn't appeal to my reason, rationality or compassion in any way. I value human life, and it looks like a lot of others around here do also.

Please explain yourself. You might get more support.
http://ravingatheists.com/forum/images/icons/warning.gif

[Sternwallow]

can you at least agree you would like better educated people in the world, more political emphasis on science and a wider awareness on proper scientific method.

or are you happy with irrational believes ruling your political leaders?
Great goals, but they have nothing to do with atheism. Many theists also want better education and more science and rationality (by their definition) in office. How and why would you exclude them from this organization you are intent on building?

You seem to forget the organizations that do exist for atheists, like AA and CFI and Secular Humanists.

[Sternwallow]

That's what Richard Dawkins looks like when he's off camera, you know.
Oh, indeed? At least he dresses well. :)

[Sternwallow]

Atheist is what you are not, not what you are. I know non-deluded folk who I would cross the street to avoid & who's political views would make me retch. I wish we didn't need a word for what we are not.
Spoken like a true a-alchemist. :)

[a different tim]

fair enough, i can see that my opinion is not shared

but a different tim i hope you are not disillusioned enough to believe that a single vote in a democracy has any relevance. Groups have power in political circles not individuals. you will probably vote all your life and not get anywhere.

i'm also rather surprised at the lack of pride Atheists have on this forum. i make no apology Atheists are better than theists, full stop.

i would much rather entrust power to Atheists than theists, and i fear in the current political climate that's the only two choices we have. it has become a Black or White decision, choose the side of Atheists and we live in a world based in critical evaluation and rational thinking, chose to do nothing or the side of the theists and we welcome a new dark age.

I'm not disillusioned. I'm quite keen on democracy. I am very dubious of a political philosophy predicated on the innate superiority of atheists. I'm even more dubious because you seem to think atheists must have some set of personality traits which I do not share.

[ubs]

but a different tim i hope you are not disillusioned enough to believe that a single vote in a democracy has any relevance. Groups have power in political circles not individuals. you will probably vote all your life and not get anywhere..

i'm also rather surprised at the lack of pride Atheists have on this forum.


Well first of all, fuck you for following up your failed sales call with an insult. So much for political savy. The mystery of why you haven't been able to sway the other groups to which you purportedly belong has been officially solved.

Groups are about pre election marketing and the purchasing of lobbyists. They don't add any weight to your vote. All votes, including those made by individuals that identify with special interest groups are made by INDIVIDUALS, alone in a booth and are all equally fungible.

Also, atheist is not a proper noun. It's spelled with a lower case a.

i would much rather entrust power to Atheists than theists, and i fear in the current political climate that's the only two choices we have. it has become a Black or White decision, choose the side of Atheists and we live in a world based in critical evaluation and rational thinking, chose to do nothing or the side of the theists and we welcome a new dark age.

So faced with the choice between A. an atheist candidate, who was in his 70's and decided that social security should be doubled at the expense of education, but that we should stay in Iraq; and, B. a Protestant candidate that wanted to completely withdrawl from Iraq and increase education spending, you would choose candidate A.

You would choose Mao over Kennedy.
You would choose Kim Jong over Carter.

I just want to check the depth of your commitment to your non beleif, Orcus.

[ghoulslime]

Great goals, but they have nothing to do with atheism. Many theists also want better education and more science and rationality (by their definition) in office. How and why would you exclude them from this organization you are intent on building?

You seem to forget the organizations that do exist for atheists, like AA and CFI and Secular Humanists.

http://www.poetryring.com/ra/GSAtheistChurch.jpg

[Sternwallow]

I'm not disillusioned. I'm quite keen on democracy. I am very dubious of a political philosophy predicated on the innate superiority of atheists. I'm even more dubious because you seem to think atheists must have some set of personality traits which I do not share.
He is also an atheist who, by a blinding stroke of good luck never heard the word "god" or its derivatives.

[Orcus Dreki]

Well first of all, fuck you for following up your failed sales call with an insult. So much for political savy. The mystery of why you haven't been able to sway the other groups to which you purportedly belong has been officially solved.

that wasn't an insult, nor am i trying to create a political group, i'm just expressing my opinions in response to the OP stating that atheists should band together.

Groups are about pre election marketing and the purchasing of lobbyists. They don't add any weight to your vote. All votes, including those made by individuals that identify with special interest groups are made by INDIVIDUALS, alone in a booth and are all equally fungible.

that's really a false view of a Democracy, politicians are out for themselves and will make decisions that will benefit them. they don't care about a single vote therefore wont change their policies because of it. but they do care about getting into office in the first place. Only groups of people voting the same way have the ability to strike up enough fear and essentially threaten politicians for change. that's why one person = zero power, group = power.


Hi Orcus Dreki,
I share your views about motivating atheists to action as a more powerful group, and I see the humour in the Rapture deception, but when you mention poisoning people with cyanide, I have no way of knowing for sure if you're some deluded homicidal maniac, and would actually kill people in that scenario, or whether you're just making a joke, in which case, I didn't get the joke. At all!

It just doesn't appeal to my reason, rationality or compassion in any way. I value human life, and it looks like a lot of others around here do also.

Please explain yourself. You might get more support.
http://ravingatheists.com/forum/images/icons/warning.gif

it was a joke, but if you want to do it i wont stop you :)

Great goals, but they have nothing to do with atheism. Many theists also want better education and more science and rationality (by their definition) in office. How and why would you exclude them from this organization you are intent on building?

You seem to forget the organizations that do exist for atheists, like AA and CFI and Secular Humanists.

the problem i see with creating a political group just around those goals are that people need something more concrete to follow. my point is that atheism could be that concept. this does not make it a religion but atheism still embodies qualities that i want to see in men. you people may not think i am justified in generalising atheists but i clearly believe that i am.

plus i know about atheist organisations but for the third time, my problem is with how disunited they are please read my other posts on this thread.

I'm not disillusioned. I'm quite keen on democracy. I am very dubious of a political philosophy predicated on the innate superiority of atheists. I'm even more dubious because you seem to think atheists must have some set of personality traits which I do not share.

btw if i sounded like i insulted you i apologise because it was not my intention.

let me break what you said into separate parts, firstly i do believe in a innate superiority of atheists which is based on what i perceive to be innate personality traits. now i may not be correct in this because it is based on personal experience at best. however i can already see that you have qualities that i value highly in people. for one you are not willing to accept my opinion on faith, plus you can critically evaluate all my arguments. those are the qualities that i believe almost all atheist have and as a consequence make us far superior for decision making including political decisions.

secondly i am not suggesting that atheists should have totalitarian rule because it is still a democracy and nobody is forcing anybody to vote a certain way. The point of establishing a group is mainly to give the illusion of strength to atheists in a democracy. then through the lens of that power we are placed in a position to ask for better education, separation of church and state, etc. if you're not happy with they way the group is going don't vote with them, its as simple as that. however united we stand, divided we fall.

So faced with the choice between A. an atheist candidate, who was in his 70's and decided that social security should be doubled at the expense of education, but that we should stay in Iraq; and, B. a Protestant candidate that wanted to completely withdrawl from Iraq and increase education spending, you would choose candidate A.

You would choose Mao over Kennedy.
You would choose Kim Jong over Carter.

I just want to check the depth of your commitment to your non beleif, Orcus.

this is not my argument at all, because i am talking about group properties not individuals. i am not so naive to commit Dicto simpliciter fallacy, a person can have good or bad properties regardless of whether or not they are an atheist but this does not mean that atheists on average can't be better at making political decisions.

[dstroyr]

Hey 3Aeons... basically we are all intelligent and realize that we have no reason to get organized. There are clubs for people to join with like interests. i wouldn't have a problem with religion if they didn't misrepresent themselves; we should call them Clubs. The Catholic Club, the Mormon Club...

Don't sell using scare tactics.

I guess all we should do is offer up information in as many places as possible and ALOW them to find it for themselves??