National Atheist Party News.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-04-2012, 10:10 AM (This post was last modified: 10-04-2012 10:42 AM by ClydeLee.)
RE: National Atheist Party News.
The name is set up to bring out an emotional response.. Most often hoping for the negative types that will eventually get the group more publicity and potential growth.

I disagree with that methodological approach. If you find disagreeing with someone's angle or motive is irrational, label it so.

Right away in their policy mission statements they talk about how their organization is built upon the goal of representing from a secular government based on the values of secular humanism growing through the strength of secularists...

I also have a major issue with them trying to claim that atheists are mostly progressive. You are being guilty of doing the exact things they do I disagree with.(By which I mean the logical reasoning being how one comes to not-believe) Stop trying to unify Atheists as one group; Atheists aren't anything but somebody dealing with 1 question. Atheists are not some select group of people just using logic and they're not a collective that is definitely progressive which is what their lead spokesman has claimed in their podcast with TTA.

That's also not some irrational hatred of liberal or progressive movements. I am on the line of liberal and progressive but I know just as many atheists, especially clear form here, who aren't than are. The people I've encountered isn't the biggest sample size but it's manipulative to say any amount of atheists are [insert anything.]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
10-04-2012, 10:37 AM
RE: National Atheist Party News.
(09-04-2012 10:05 AM)Clint Barnett Wrote:  Your sarcasm belittles your intelligence. I'm less than impressed.



Oh no! Rolleyes


(09-04-2012 11:03 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Yes you can look and see their stances but what do many of those have to do with Atheism? Nothing at all

The reason the name matters:

Atheism isn't a viewpoint on ANYTHING other than the topic of a deity existing. It unites nothing in any other political or social category.

The Secular Progressive or Humanist types of names they had once considered were are actually fitting with their stances in whole. It covers the singular movement of handling issues without a deity or higher power being attributed as one of many fitting issues.



This. The NAP isn't representing us, anymore than a National White Party could represent white people.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dean J. Smith's post
10-04-2012, 10:48 AM
RE: National Atheist Party News.
I find it more than coincidental that I’ve now seen the same objections to NAP on three different atheist forums.

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2012, 04:32 PM
RE: National Atheist Party News.
I understand your views except for Deans he's attempting to be childish. I'm looking for the views that aren't biased.

Can you give a logical reason for not supporting them other than a policy reason? If you have a policy reason is it a logical reason?
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]
[/font]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]So far I'm only finding opinions and biases. It sounds like everyone is stuck on a name. If the same group used a different name would you have a different opinion? If so then you are leaning toward a bias.[/font]

Idiot: : a foolish or stupid person
— idiot adjective
See Republican Candidates.

Keeping realism alive, one honest offensive comment at a time!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2012, 05:20 PM (This post was last modified: 10-04-2012 05:40 PM by ClydeLee.)
RE: National Atheist Party News.
(10-04-2012 04:32 PM)Clint Barnett Wrote:  I understand your views except for Deans he's attempting to be childish. I'm looking for the views that aren't biased.

Can you give a logical reason for not supporting them other than a policy reason? If you have a policy reason is it a logical reason?
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif][/font]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]So far I'm only finding opinions and biases. It sounds like everyone is stuck on a name. If the same group used a different name would you have a different opinion? If so then you are leaning toward a bias.[/font]
I've already listed several as a point before. They simply don't represent atheists because it is impossible to represent atheists as a unified political grouping.

I wouldn't support any movement that is trying to unify atheists as a group outside others in a political party. If they were the secular humanist party, I wouldn't make fun of their name, but I wouldn't support them either if they still were trying to say, non believers are mostly progressive.

An actual effort they went out against I'm not a fan of is their attack on the 9/11 cross beam. Idk if there is a plaque that says a prayer there or too much about it. That part I would remove but if they kept the replaced beams sitting there, it's fine. It isn't a religious slap until one puts the, I know obvious, religious signification in their mind to make it a statement.

If you keep thinking that disliking the group for its name is irrational, you have to at least acknowledge that it was entirely the goal of the name they chose. It says over and over on their FAQ page, how they chose it to specifically evoke an emotion and that it is easier since people wouldn't know what freethought/secular means. Their approach is intentionally to be controversial and not to be as productive as possible.

"Love is hot, Truth is molten!"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
10-04-2012, 06:23 PM
RE: National Atheist Party News.
Clint when you're trying to discuss the opposite feelings why not start by mentioning that the party was originally going to be the free thought party, but the members voted for national atheist party. I think it makes a good answer to the big contention normlly mentioned that it was just a democratically decided name.

I'm just mentioning a thought from Seth's discussion with some of the big names. Perhaps their faq brings focus on the name, but before there was a name there was a platform.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Lilith Pride's post
16-04-2012, 03:43 PM
RE: National Atheist Party News.
(10-04-2012 04:32 PM)Clint Barnett Wrote:  I understand your views except for Deans he's attempting to be childish.

Alas, it seems I have failed, or at least been surpassed. Perhaps if I had succeeded in being childish you would have understood my views. Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2012, 09:22 AM
RE: National Atheist Party News.
Joining a group to put numbers together to scare politicans is a good thing. Keeps the bible out of the court house.
Joining a group so that they can give me a platform to conform to...not a chance in hell even if it did exit.

The old gods are dead, let's invent some new ones before something really bad happens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thomas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: