National Atheist Party
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-07-2011, 11:30 PM
 
RE: National Atheist Party
(03-07-2011 11:07 PM)lucradis Wrote:  Sorry about the stroke. I'm also interested in some of the positions this party has if you wouldn't mind addressing this. Just a question about your intentions when you decided to join the forum. Did you just join to advertise? If so I still consider that spam.

I am a new "out of the closet" atheist and had joined this forum (along with a couple of others) to gain more knowledge and make some friends at the same time. While researching groups, forums and the like I came across the National Atheist Party and was both excited and intrigued. After reaching out to them I decided to join and be a part of what I think will be an interesting journey. The party is in its infancy and my intention was to reach out to fellow atheists in the U.S. via the forums that I belong to. This action, this reaching out, was merely an attempt to let people know that the NAP exists and is looking for like minded individuals to get involved. This is and was not an advertising campaign, but my own (what appears to be now misguided) attempt in helping the cause. I certainly was not looking for the responses that were made.

So no this is not me just advertising for the NAP. I guess it may have appeared that way since I didn't immediately reply to the postings that were made. I simply do not have the energy at this time to stay glued to my PC and read everything that is happening in the forums. As I regain my strength and health I will certainly try not to let this happen again. I can say with some degree of certainty that I will be very, very careful in the future as to what I post though. Being wrongfully attacked or judged is not something that I enjoy... I can take a good ass kicking when I deserve it - but I need to actually deserve it to be OK with it (if that makes any sense).
(03-07-2011 10:33 PM)Mindprowler Wrote:  Thanks for replying. If you could send somebody from the NAP to this forum to discuss the platform with us that would be great.

I am more than happy to get this done. I don't believe the NAP's President belongs to this forum (and I'll double check with him) but I am going to suggest that he join ASAP and get involved with this thread to start fielding the questions that you and others may have.
Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2011, 12:00 AM
RE: National Atheist Party
(03-07-2011 11:30 PM)DocRon Wrote:  This action, this reaching out, was merely an attempt to let people know that the NAP exists and is looking for like minded individuals to get involved. This is and was not an advertising campaign, but my own (what appears to be now misguided) attempt in helping the cause. I certainly was not looking for the responses that were made.

So no this is not me just advertising for the NAP. I guess it may have appeared that way since I didn't immediately reply to the postings that were made. I simply do not have the energy at this time to stay glued to my PC and read everything that is happening in the forums. As I regain my strength and health I will certainly try not to let this happen again. I can say with some degree of certainty that I will be very, very careful in the future as to what I post though. Being wrongfully attacked or judged is not something that I enjoy... I can take a good ass kicking when I deserve it - but I need to actually deserve it to be OK with it (if that makes any sense).
(03-07-2011 10:33 PM)Mindprowler Wrote:  Thanks for replying. If you could send somebody from the NAP to this forum to discuss the platform with us that would be great.

I am more than happy to get this done. I don't believe the NAP's President belongs to this forum (and I'll double check with him) but I am going to suggest that he join ASAP and get involved with this thread to start fielding the questions that you and others may have.

I don't think you should be taking a lot of these comments as hostility towards you. It seemed like you had the idea that we would all be head over heels ready to support an organization simply because it has "atheist" in the title. As of your first post the only thing most of the members here and the NAP have in common is a doubtful perspective towards the supernatural. As a "political" party it's important to make sure your platform is being marketed to us as well so we have more to read into. You can't expect willing support from us just because we all reject supernatural claims, that's not enough to gain political support.

No hard feelings, man. It just seemed like the original post was another attempt to lump all atheists into the same pile.

http://www.youtube.com/user/MindprowlerMusic
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2011, 06:49 AM
RE: National Atheist Party
DocRon

Appreciate you coming here and telling us about this. My reticence to be involved stems from the fact that my atheism is not a defining quality about me. My non-belief does not cause me to have any specific agenda, except maybe to be left alone by theists who seem bent on pushing their point of view on me. But, that does not seem to be a sufficient platform for a political party. Fortunately, I have the 1st Amendment to protect me from overbearing theists and, while it may take some time, the law is on my side. So, I don't see that i need a separate political platform.

I've been on this forum for almost a year now. One of the things I've learned is that there is no single atheist agenda. There are a whole lot of things that people here do not agree on. We've had splits on abortion (most are adamantly pro-choice, but we have a few pro-life atheists here), on how to run an economy (we have many proclaimed socialists whereas I am a traditional capitalist (which is not the same as the corporate capitalism we have in the US)), we have different views on parenting, on speech, on just about every issue you can think of. The only single unifying point we have is our non-belief in a deity.

I can't speak for anyone but myself but, for me, a political party that rallies solely around non-belief serves no purpose and has no chance. And, it also ignores the larger problem, that being not that the major parties are theistic but that they are bought and paid for by special interests, and religious groups are one of those special interests. Put another way: Christians vote, and usually in large blocks. We don't need a political party, we need a lobbying effort that focuses on our issue of getting church separated from state.

Sorry to hear about your stroke. Hope you fully recover, marine. Semper Fi.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2011, 08:07 AM (This post was last modified: 04-07-2011 12:44 PM by TrainWreck.)
RE: National Atheist Party
Well, I for one, cannot wait to join, but I am still skeptical about its organization status, at this time.

Oh, boy. I found their website finally, why DocRon didn't post it I do not know???
http://www.supportatheism.com/

Anyway, as much as it is full of articles it has nothing about an agenda - they're dead in the pond, stupid! All they want to do is beat the dead horse about religion. Like I said before - not even half baked.
(04-07-2011 06:49 AM)BnW Wrote:  I can't speak for anyone but myself but, for me, a political party that rallies solely around non-belief serves no purpose and has no chance.
I assure you, you are not alone; you and all the other atheists need to stop thinking that way. A political party organized by atheists is going to be dedicated to exercising reason into the organization of the agenda and legislation - it is not about justifying atheism. It is about demonstrating that atheists have superior judgment when it comes to leading society, that in turn, justifies atheism.

Why don't atheists think that way?

(04-07-2011 06:49 AM)BnW Wrote:  And, it also ignores the larger problem, that being not that the major parties are theistic but that they are bought and paid for by special interests, and religious groups are one of those special interests. Put another way: Christians vote, and usually in large blocks. We don't need a political party, we need a lobbying effort that focuses on our issue of getting church separated from state.
See, you do not know that the atheists do have a lobbying group - the Secular Coalition for America. And I'll bet there are others. As far as political parties pandering to the lobbyists - correcting that problem is apart of the agenda I am designing. But part of the problem that people need to understand is that representatives can only represent organized thought - representatives cannot represent diversity.

Quote:About the Secular Coalition for America

The Secular Coalition for America is a 501©4 advocacy organization whose purpose is to amplify the diverse and growing voice of the nontheistic community in the United States. We are located in Washington, D.C. for ready access to government, activist partners and the media. Our staff lobbies U.S. Congress on issues of special concern to our constituency.

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
04-07-2011, 11:31 AM
 
RE: National Atheist Party
(04-07-2011 08:07 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  I assure you, you are not alone; you and all the other atheists need to stop thinking that way. A political party organized by atheists is going to be dedicated to exercising reason into the organization of the agenda and legislation - it is not about justifying atheism. It is about demonstrating that atheists have superior judgment when it comes to leading society, that in turn, justifies atheism.

Why don't atheists think that way?

Because atheists do not have superior judgement when it comes to leading society. There are competent theists as well, and I see no reason to believe that whether one is religious indicates whether one is a good leader. It's one small factor, and compared to other traits I consider it very insignificant when evaluating a politician's competence. Now if someone wants to push their beliefs on others, then that would make them very unfit for holding office. But if they have silly superstitions that they can keep out of their politics, then I don't really care what those superstitions are.
Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2011, 12:14 PM (This post was last modified: 04-07-2011 12:19 PM by TrainWreck.)
RE: National Atheist Party
(04-07-2011 11:31 AM)Zach Wrote:  
TrainWreck Wrote:. . . It is about demonstrating that atheists have superior judgment when it comes to leading society, that in turn, justifies atheism. Why don't atheists think that way?

Because atheists do not have superior judgement when it comes to leading society.
As it is now, because of poor leadership in the past, your evaluation is true - atheists are just as incompetent as the theists. And look where we are??? Atheists were just as excited to jump on the band wagon of "hope and change," with out asking what is the agenda of change - how can Washington be changed without changing the constitution?

(04-07-2011 11:31 AM)Zach Wrote:  There are competent theists as well, and I see no reason to believe that whether one is religious indicates whether one is a good leader. It's one small factor, and compared to other traits I consider it very insignificant when evaluating a politician's competence.
Basically, what you are doing is justifying your misunderstanding that religion is a hobby, when religion is a 24/7 practice, and the practitioner is supposed to integrate the philosophical logic and morality of the religion into all of his thinking.

(04-07-2011 11:31 AM)Zach Wrote:  Now if someone wants to push their beliefs on others, then that would make them very unfit for holding office. But if they have silly superstitions that they can keep out of their politics, then I don't really care what those superstitions are.
Yeah, you see, that is the only way you understand religion - that it is a one hour a week hobby.

There are no competent atheists for office, because there is no standard ideology that any atheist can be held accountable to if we allow this idea to continue that all atheists are all different all the time. Consider the situation of an atheist claiming to be a Democrat; if he is also to be considered one of the diverse atheists of the infinite diversity - how are we to hold him accountable to any decisions he makes, he would be free to act independently of the Democrat agenda, just like all the rest of the Democrat atheists - right?

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
04-07-2011, 04:26 PM
 
RE: National Atheist Party
(04-07-2011 12:14 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  Basically, what you are doing is justifying your misunderstanding that religion is a hobby, when religion is a 24/7 practice, and the practitioner is supposed to integrate the philosophical logic and morality of the religion into all of his thinking.

Yeah, you see, that is the only way you understand religion - that it is a one hour a week hobby.

Their religion is supposed to run their lives, but plenty of theists don't follow it that way. I'd say a good portion of them live and behave like atheists most of the time, until they go to church or start thinking about death, then they fall into that religious mindset as a source of comfort. But for many, many theists, religion really is just "a one hour a week hobby". Those types of theists are not a threat to much of anything, and they can be just as logical and competent as atheists.

(04-07-2011 12:14 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  There are no competent atheists for office, because there is no standard ideology that any atheist can be held accountable to if we allow this idea to continue that all atheists are all different all the time. Consider the situation of an atheist claiming to be a Democrat; if he is also to be considered one of the diverse atheists of the infinite diversity - how are we to hold him accountable to any decisions he makes, he would be free to act independently of the Democrat agenda, just like all the rest of the Democrat atheists - right?

A standard ideology? It sounds like you're suggesting that atheism be turned into a religion. Lack of belief in gods cannot be turned into a unifying agenda, and if you wish to create a unifying agenda and call it atheism it's going to mean something completely different than simple lack of belief. If you want to add more to it than that, then you'll attract theists who agree with the rest of your agenda and repel atheists who disagree. Claiming that because we all lack belief in gods we should also hold other opinions is nonsense, atheism should not define anybody.

The part about Democrat atheists doesn't make sense. Are you saying that as a Democrat he has some accountability to the Democratic party and their agenda, and that it should be the same way with him being an atheist? If you could explain that better I'd like to know what you're talking about, I don't quite get what you're saying with that example.
Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2011, 07:22 AM (This post was last modified: 05-07-2011 07:37 AM by TrainWreck.)
RE: National Atheist Party
(04-07-2011 04:26 PM)Zach Wrote:  Their religion is supposed to run their lives, but plenty of theists don't follow it that way. I'd say a good portion of them live and behave like atheists most of the time, until they go to church or start thinking about death, then they fall into that religious mindset as a source of comfort. But for many, many theists, religion really is just "a one hour a week hobby". Those types of theists are not a threat to much of anything, and they can be just as logical and competent as atheists.
That is a problem, because that is why we have difficulty convincing theists that there is no god, because they can play the Pascal's wager - what difference does it make if there is a god, or not?
And the atheist response should be that the dispel of belief in gods leads to better reasoning, but because atheists interact with the dominant theist community, the atheists reasoning is erroneous, as well.
(04-07-2011 04:26 PM)Zach Wrote:  A standard ideology? It sounds like you're suggesting that atheism be turned into a religion.
I want atheism to be considered a political party that unifies all the factions of thought that atheists believe they have.

(04-07-2011 04:26 PM)Zach Wrote:  Lack of belief in gods cannot be turned into a unifying agenda, and if you wish to create a unifying agenda and call it atheism it's going to mean something completely different than simple lack of belief. If you want to add more to it than that, then you'll attract theists who agree with the rest of your agenda and repel atheists who disagree. Claiming that because we all lack belief in gods we should also hold other opinions is nonsense, atheism should not define anybody.
The problem is that you and most all atheists do not understand that atheists are not an infinity of ideological systems of thought - there is a finite set of factions that needs to be defined, and the way to define them is we have to organize.

The reasoning that you and most all atheists are using would mean that all Republicans and all Democrats are in lock-step on their ideological views, but that cannot be true- there are factions of the political ideologies, and the problem is that they are not always clearly defined, and it causes problems.

Check it out the President of American Atheist is making the argument that atheism is something more than what you think it is, but he is also playing to you and most atheists sentiments by not defining it.
Quote:David Silverman, president of American Atheists, commented for his article. The objective of the campaign, Silverman explained, was to “get people talking on a local level about what atheism is and what it represents.” “Atheism,” Silverman explains, “has strong patriotic roots because America is a secular nation in which people are free to profess no religious belief." Atheists also largely support separation of church and state, a main cornerstone of our nation. "Atheists in America are everywhere,” Silverman explained, “but many theists often do not want us to speak or demand that we can't speak. The fact that we have a message angers many theists no matter what the message is.”

Continue reading on Examiner.com Atheists' aerial banners not welcome in Pennsylvania - Scranton Atheism | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-scran...z1REn5e1lf

What is atheism and what does it represent??? He is trying to build the political agenda.

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
05-07-2011, 08:03 AM
 
RE: National Atheist Party
(05-07-2011 07:22 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  That is a problem, because that is why we have difficulty convincing theists that there is no god, because they can play the Pascal's wager - what difference does it make if there is a god, or not?
And the atheist response should be that the dispel of belief in gods leads to better reasoning, but because atheists interact with the dominant theist community, the atheists reasoning is erroneous, as well.

It isn't really a problem in politics. It just means that these theists who aren't run by their religions and understand that they must not try to legislate it or force on others (ie the theists who prefer a secular government instead of a religious government) are just as capable as atheists, or in many cases more capable than atheists. Atheism != intelligence, there are many nonbelievers who would easily convert given a persuasive enough appeal to their emotions. If you want to get the people who are the most logical and capable of solving the world's problems, I wouldn't use atheism as an indicator of intelligence.

As atheists, the only unifying agenda I imagine us having is to keep religion out of government and politics completely, and to combat persecution of various groups by the religious. That agenda is one that would be embraced by numerous theists as well as most atheists. Calling that an atheist party would just repel theists who agree with its agenda, but it's the only way I can see one defining atheism politically.

(05-07-2011 07:22 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  I want atheism to be considered a political party that unifies all the factions of thought that atheists believe they have.

How do you propose to unify libertarians and socialists? Conservatives and liberals?

(05-07-2011 07:22 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  The problem is that you and most all atheists do not understand that atheists are not an infinity of ideological systems of thought - there is a finite set of factions that needs to be defined, and the way to define them is we have to organize.

The reasoning that you and most all atheists are using would mean that all Republicans and all Democrats are in lock-step on their ideological views, but that cannot be true- there are factions of the political ideologies, and the problem is that they are not always clearly defined, and it causes problems.

It's hard to rigidly define every possible set of political views atheists, republicans, or democrats hold, and I don't see what it would accomplish. There are a finite number of factions, but depending on how much detail you wish to go into there still are a lot.

I don't really care what political agenda any atheist party builds, and I doubt most atheists do. If that agenda fits our political views, we would probably support the party, and if it doesn't, then we probably wouldn't. It's going to have to pursue a very limited agenda if it wants to represent all atheists, once it gets into issues that the big parties fight over you'll lose the interest of a big chunk of atheists because they hold a different opinion.
Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2011, 12:05 PM (This post was last modified: 05-07-2011 03:59 PM by TrainWreck.)
RE: National Atheist Party
(05-07-2011 08:03 AM)Zach Wrote:  It isn't really a problem in politics. It just means that these theists who aren't run by their religions and understand that they must not try to legislate it or force on others (ie the theists who prefer a secular government instead of a religious government) are just as capable as atheists, or in many cases more capable than atheists. Atheism != intelligence, there are many nonbelievers who would easily convert given a persuasive enough appeal to their emotions. If you want to get the people who are the most logical and capable of solving the world's problems, I wouldn't use atheism as an indicator of intelligence.
Well, sadly I have to agree with your assessing statement, but it is true only because atheists insist on living and interacting with the theists, and therefor, have to compromise strict logical reasoning in order to cope.

In order for the theists to realize that their ideologies are inept they have to be allowed to enforce the moralities through their governments. These are not going to be theocracies - they will be Christian republics or democracies, or Islamic republics and democracies; and of course, there will be Atheist republics or democracies. And the chaotic secular republics will be allowed to continue, as well; but they will probably change over to Atheist republics once it is realized how well they work.

And all of the scary shit that you are afraid that will happen is controlled by the federal government. If a person does not like the atheists' form of government they will be encouraged to seek refuge in a more accommodating state, otherwise the atheist state has no choice but to declare the person incompetent and a danger to the society. Christians do not want atheists in their states and will be more than happy to deliver them to your door step - they only want people who want to follow the morality and logic. And when everybody leaves the state, then the religion collapses The Muslims are a bunch of savages and want to kill everybody who is not a Muslim, but if they do that they will lose their sanction to have control of a state - it will be a war if necessary. And once we have definite proof that such a religion cannot perpetuate under the conditions of a democracy, and violates the human rights shit, then the federal government has reason to forbid the ideology/religion.

You cannot do that with the religions as it is now under secular social laws that are infinitely tolerant of religion. The First Amendment only forbids the Congress from respecting the establishment of a religion - it does not forbid the states, nor the President, nor any individual. This means any US Congressman can exercise his religious beliefs in his decision making of legislation and laws, and the President can make an executive order calling all citizens to accept a one unifying religion; of course the Congress can repeal it. And all the states have the option of being religious oriented republics or democracies. But nobody knows how to construct a true democracy - centuries away.

It's fairly complicated to understand as to how it works, but the first problem to resolve is that atheists are under the falsehood of the past leaderships who had to proclaim that we are all different with only one thing in common, in order to gather the membership necessary just to keep the organizations afloat. The next step is for the organizations to start sorting the ideologies, but only a few of us are capable of understanding how to do such. This guy with the National Atheist Party does not have anything, but a political idea of just trying to get some kind of representation - he does not have a plan, because he does not understand the mind changing necessary to accomplish the organization of a unifying and progressing political agenda. he has plenty of atheists who are mad, loud, and proud; but when it comes to actually doing anything that would resolve the agenda of political representation they have no clue - basically they expect theists to meet their demands and grant them special representation.

(05-07-2011 08:03 AM)Zach Wrote:  As atheists, the only unifying agenda I imagine us having is to keep religion out of government and politics completely, and to combat persecution of various groups by the religious. That agenda is one that would be embraced by numerous theists as well as most atheists. Calling that an atheist party would just repel theists who agree with its agenda, but it's the only way I can see one defining atheism politically.
That would be accurate, how it is accomplished justly is to be the major development of the political agenda. The problem here that atheists are going to have to realize is that it is theism that atheists are opposed, because eventually atheists will recognize that religion and political parties are essentially the same category of social ideologies - how communities are guided.

The key that atheists always forget is that the god is an allegory to an ideology. Theists are not responsible for understanding that, but atheists are, because atheists do not believe in gods and therefore are free to recognize that the study of ideology has a scientific understanding of how allegories work.

(05-07-2011 08:03 AM)Zach Wrote:  
(05-07-2011 07:22 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  I want atheism to be considered a political party that unifies all the factions of thought that atheists believe they have.
How do you propose to unify libertarians and socialists? Conservatives and liberals?
They are unified in that they want to remove any possible errors of theist thinking in their understanding of the political ideology. Atheists have to realize that their ideological systems are tainted, because of the acceptance of theists in the contemporary organizations. Once that is accomplished and the atheists of such designations begin to organize autonomously, they can then deliberate all issues to a correct reasoned resolve defined by the precepts of the ideologies.

(05-07-2011 08:03 AM)Zach Wrote:  It's hard to rigidly define every possible set of political views atheists, republicans, or democrats hold, and I don't see what it would accomplish. There are a finite number of factions, but depending on how much detail you wish to go into there still are a lot.
Yeah, its going to take some time - centuries. But most of the non-sense will be discriminated rather quickly, it's just that right now atheists, like you, do not understand how to deliberate complete ideological systems, because the political system is very erroneous because of the compromises that are associated with plural-secular society with popular voting systems.

A scientific ordering of society is possible and inevitable, and the way to it is through the scientific review process of segregated republics with proportional voting systems. The United States is made up of fifty states that are each possible control groups of societies of different laws - if they were to be of the same laws they would all be of identical governments of the hierarchy - every state would be the same, and every local would be the same, and every school would be the same. But it is not that way, but people, like you, believe it is that way; and the result is that people like you are more concerned about the national politics and have no concept of their local politics - its how the Democrats want you to think.

(05-07-2011 08:03 AM)Zach Wrote:  I don't really care what political agenda any atheist party builds, and I doubt most atheists do. If that agenda fits our political views, we would probably support the party, and if it doesn't, then we probably wouldn't. It's going to have to pursue a very limited agenda if it wants to represent all atheists, once it gets into issues that the big parties fight over you'll lose the interest of a big chunk of atheists because they hold a different opinion.
The unifying agenda is the dismantling of theism in society, so as to evolve the proper and better humanity - its not that difficult to understand. You've just been taught to believe that you are an elite intellectual, and tolerant of theism and all the other atheists' gibberish, because atheists were not able to organize any other way; and the perpetuation of the falsehood continues (dogma).

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: