Organized Atheists

[Professor Chaos]

Irreligious wrote

So, who am I with? This guy: ?

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.

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.

Irreligious wrote

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 and American Atheists 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 did back in the 1980s or even Martin Luther King Jr.'s organization, the SCLC, 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]

psychodiva wrote

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.

National Secular Society wrote

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]

PanAtheist wrote

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]

National Secular Society UK wrote

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

[psychodiva]

whats that suposed to prove? or mean?

[PanAtheist]

psychodiva wrote

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]

PanAtheist wrote

Right up front (second paragraph) in the "About Us" page of the UK's National Secular Society.
Here.



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.