I am a skeptic of the Atheist Party.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-01-2012, 03:56 AM
RE: I am a skeptic of the Atheist Party.
(19-01-2012 06:54 AM)Hamata k Wrote:  Atheists have a party? Since when?

My sentiments exactly... Isn't that like organized 'non-religion'. Dodgy

"I feel like the weight of the world has been lifted from my shoulders...
Thanks for getting off my back!"
-
Arcticspear Idea
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-01-2012, 04:04 AM
RE: I am a skeptic of the Atheist Party.
We could have a party. But we need some good steak and maybe some kebobs.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logisch's post
30-01-2012, 04:20 PM (This post was last modified: 30-01-2012 04:26 PM by TrainWreck.)
RE: I am a skeptic of the Atheist Party.
(27-01-2012 05:20 AM)Smooshmonster Wrote:  We want to affect change but we do it without becoming a party.
This is typical thinking of atheists.

The problem with it is that it is also how atheists would like to think that religious organizations (should) act; secondly, it is kind of strange that atheists believe that social change can be accomplished by some means other than political organization.


(27-01-2012 05:20 AM)Smooshmonster Wrote:  I think that is more realistic than trying to find a common political ground for all atheists. As the political test thread showed us, we're unlikely to agree on enough to form a basis for a political party.
You don't even think it is possible to agree that considerations of religious justification for social policy should be banned, and that religious people cannot be trusted to carry-out such a decree?

And, that only atheists are qualified to make non-religious based decisions???

Because, the religious, believe that all decisions should be justified by religious precedents.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2012, 08:03 PM
RE: I am a skeptic of the Atheist Party.
When I first heard about the Atheist party I had the same reaction as many here. There are many reasons why I didn't think it will work and just as many purely against the very idea.

However, I visited their site and I actually joined up. I found them clear and purposeful and not at all deluded. That was a point in their favor. I have also come to believe that we need to re-appropriate the word "atheist" from the clutches of those that have turned it into an insult.
We try to operate under many banners. Humanists, non-believers, even the "Brights" (whom I appreciate as people but loath as a name).
Atheist does the job quite nicely while managing to encompass the many different kind of people that recognize themselves in the word.

We should be able to say "I am an atheist" without being misunderstood on one side sand persecuted on the other. So if the Atheist party can help toward that end while fighting for the separation of church and state, I won't be ashamed of supporting them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2012, 09:19 PM
RE: I am a skeptic of the Atheist Party.
(30-01-2012 04:20 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(27-01-2012 05:20 AM)Smooshmonster Wrote:  We want to affect change but we do it without becoming a party.
This is typical thinking of atheists.

The problem with it is that it is also how atheists would like to think that religious organizations (should) act; secondly, it is kind of strange that atheists believe that social change can be accomplished by some means other than political organization.

I'm pretty sure we're witnessing the death throes of religion. The last spasms are always the most desperate. Think I'm just gonna stand back and let it die of it's own accord. Don't see any reason why I need to risk getting accidentally bloodied or bruised by getting in the way.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2012, 04:04 PM (This post was last modified: 02-02-2012 04:18 PM by TrainWreck.)
RE: I am a skeptic of the Atheist Party.
(31-01-2012 08:03 PM)cconti Wrote:  I have also come to believe that we need to re-appropriate the word "atheist" from the clutches of those that have turned it into an insult.
We try to operate under many banners. Humanists, non-believers, even the "Brights" (whom I appreciate as people but loath as a name).
Atheist does the job quite nicely while managing to encompass the many different kind of people that recognize themselves in the word.

We should be able to say "I am an atheist" without being misunderstood on one side sand persecuted on the other. So if the Atheist party can help toward that end while fighting for the separation of church and state, I won't be ashamed of supporting them.
This is a major problem, and another reason why "atheism" should be understood as the political component of what we are trying to do - extinguish theism.

Humanism is probably the correct metaphysical designation. It is very unorderly to designate a metaphysical premise with respect to it's antithesis, especially when the antithesis is to be considered an invalid stance for establishing logical consistency.

We should probably be ashamed to be called "atheists," because you have nothing better to show for it - you're just as confused as the theists, although you will preach that you have clearer view of guiding society than the theists.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2012, 05:15 PM
RE: I am a skeptic of the Atheist Party.
(02-02-2012 04:04 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(31-01-2012 08:03 PM)cconti Wrote:  I have also come to believe that we need to re-appropriate the word "atheist" from the clutches of those that have turned it into an insult.
We try to operate under many banners. Humanists, non-believers, even the "Brights" (whom I appreciate as people but loath as a name).
Atheist does the job quite nicely while managing to encompass the many different kind of people that recognize themselves in the word.

We should be able to say "I am an atheist" without being misunderstood on one side sand persecuted on the other. So if the Atheist party can help toward that end while fighting for the separation of church and state, I won't be ashamed of supporting them.
This is a major problem, and another reason why "atheism" should be understood as the political component of what we are trying to do - extinguish theism.

Humanism is probably the correct metaphysical designation. It is very unorderly to designate a metaphysical premise with respect to it's antithesis, especially when the antithesis is to be considered an invalid stance for establishing logical consistency.

We should probably be ashamed to be called "atheists," because you have nothing better to show for it - you're just as confused as the theists, although you will preach that you have clearer view of guiding society than the theists.

Sure, if I could remake the dictionary I would prefer "Humanist" a 1000 times over "Atheist". But if I tell someone I am a Humanist, I'll bet my paycheck they won't know what I am talking about (I am taking your average low octane theist as an example) and after I start explaining it they'll probably walk away thinking I am an atheist anyway.

Atheist is indeed defined by the very thing we oppose, but in some cases it's a useful definition. If I am a soldier and I have "humanist" in my dog tags, the burial service (at least in the army I served which wasn't the US army) will be a bit confused. If they read atheist they will know that neither cross nor star of David will do.

As a term for a political movement it's a little less useful, but if I read correctly, it was voted on by a majority of party members. They have several choices (and in fact they had a different name if I remember correctly) and they picked "National Atheist Party". Considering its focus on church-state issues it is at least not prone to equivocation.

Another consideration is that words do change meaning over time. Maybe the NAP (unfortunate acronym, I must say) could be a first step to a change in meaning.

Regardless, taking the negative connotation away from "atheist" can only benefit us because its derogatory use certainly doesn't do us any favors.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cconti's post
02-02-2012, 06:52 PM
RE: I am a skeptic of the Atheist Party.
(02-02-2012 05:15 PM)cconti Wrote:  
(02-02-2012 04:04 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(31-01-2012 08:03 PM)cconti Wrote:  I have also come to believe that we need to re-appropriate the word "atheist" from the clutches of those that have turned it into an insult.
We try to operate under many banners. Humanists, non-believers, even the "Brights" (whom I appreciate as people but loath as a name).
Atheist does the job quite nicely while managing to encompass the many different kind of people that recognize themselves in the word.

We should be able to say "I am an atheist" without being misunderstood on one side sand persecuted on the other. So if the Atheist party can help toward that end while fighting for the separation of church and state, I won't be ashamed of supporting them.
This is a major problem, and another reason why "atheism" should be understood as the political component of what we are trying to do - extinguish theism.

Humanism is probably the correct metaphysical designation. It is very unorderly to designate a metaphysical premise with respect to it's antithesis, especially when the antithesis is to be considered an invalid stance for establishing logical consistency.

We should probably be ashamed to be called "atheists," because you have nothing better to show for it - you're just as confused as the theists, although you will preach that you have clearer view of guiding society than the theists.

Sure, if I could remake the dictionary I would prefer "Humanist" a 1000 times over "Atheist". But if I tell someone I am a Humanist, I'll bet my paycheck they won't know what I am talking about (I am taking your average low octane theist as an example) and after I start explaining it they'll probably walk away thinking I am an atheist anyway.

Atheist is indeed defined by the very thing we oppose, but in some cases it's a useful definition. If I am a soldier and I have "humanist" in my dog tags, the burial service (at least in the army I served which wasn't the US army) will be a bit confused. If they read atheist they will know that neither cross nor star of David will do.

As a term for a political movement it's a little less useful, but if I read correctly, it was voted on by a majority of party members. They have several choices (and in fact they had a different name if I remember correctly) and they picked "National Atheist Party". Considering its focus on church-state issues it is at least not prone to equivocation.

Another consideration is that words do change meaning over time. Maybe the NAP (unfortunate acronym, I must say) could be a first step to a change in meaning.

Regardless, taking the negative connotation away from "atheist" can only benefit us because its derogatory use certainly doesn't do us any favors.

There is a situation where a lot of people don't know what the word Atheist means either. Plenty have no clue but in the media the idea is understood but also skewed by various takes on the term.

I have a bigger problem with the party and it's intend if its members really thought the term atheist party was more fitting than the freethought party which is what it had been.

Freethought or Humanism are different because they're more than a single stance on a singular issue such as Atheism. If people don't quite know what they are then ought to be the party's mission to inform the public about the importance of logic, reason, and science being used in a human aided view to pull.

The spokesmen claiming, it turns out, most atheists are center-liberals because it's what are majority have gone with is a false lumping of atheists. It is probably true that most freethinkers or secular humanists follow that ideology which determines what the party truly is about.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
06-02-2012, 04:34 PM
RE: I am a skeptic of the Atheist Party.
(02-02-2012 05:15 PM)cconti Wrote:  Sure, if I could remake the dictionary I would prefer "Humanist" a 1000 times over "Atheist". But if I tell someone I am a Humanist, I'll bet my paycheck they won't know what I am talking about (I am taking your average low octane theist as an example) and after I start explaining it they'll probably walk away thinking I am an atheist anyway.

Atheist is indeed defined by the very thing we oppose, but in some cases it's a useful definition. If I am a soldier and I have "humanist" in my dog tags, the burial service (at least in the army I served which wasn't the US army) will be a bit confused. If they read atheist they will know that neither cross nor star of David will do.
Well, I would think that your military's ability to do a google search is pretty poor - there is no excuse, and why would you care if they marked your death with a cross, or something other than what you expect for a humanist - doesn't your family know you don't want that stuff?

(02-02-2012 05:15 PM)cconti Wrote:  As a term for a political movement it's a little less useful, but if I read correctly, it was voted on by a majority of party members. They have several choices (and in fact they had a different name if I remember correctly) and they picked "National Atheist Party". Considering its focus on church-state issues it is at least not prone to equivocation.

Another consideration is that words do change meaning over time. Maybe the NAP (unfortunate acronym, I must say) could be a first step to a change in meaning.

Regardless, taking the negative connotation away from "atheist" can only benefit us because its derogatory use certainly doesn't do us any favors.
You, and all your atheist buddies, need to come to the reasoned conclusion that atheism is your political stance of exercising non-theist reasoning in the legislation of policy, and that humanism is your metphysical stance concerning the existence of a supernatural dimension of human existence.

Memorize the following statement for when people ask you anything that reminds you of the subject of atheism and humanism: I am a humanist, and atheism is the political stance that religious shit should not be in our politics - thank you, have a blessed mother-fucking-day.

That is the line I use here in New York and those stupid-ass ghetto-gangster types know to stay out of my fucking way, because they know I'm the man with the plan.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TrainWreck's post
06-02-2012, 04:37 PM
RE: I am a skeptic of the Atheist Party.
Hey, Mr. Wreck, this is a little off-topic, but I was just curious as to your (non)religious stance.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: