|
Post by freethinker on Dec 28, 2003 19:27:41 GMT -5
I just stumbled on your site and although I encourage your mission I feel it falls short on the larger scheme of things. Atheists , freethinkers, agnostics, deists etc need to become more proactive and get the message out into the local newspapers. The small protest in NJ just isn't going to do it. Whats more atheists in general seem to be made up of left wing liberals. I don't know why as I am a conservative atheist. The liberal agenda is just not going to convince anyone as history has shown it just doesn't work. Atheists need to cultivate some charismatic conservative orators and need them to get in the media for exposure. We already know their is a significant number of church goers that do so out of habit or peer pressure and are ripe for the conversion to atheism at best and a buffer to Christian theocracy at least. We can make a difference but waiting for theists to come to us is a big mistake.
|
|
|
Post by Maverick on Dec 28, 2003 20:09:52 GMT -5
freethinker, thanks for your comments. Please note that guests can only create posts in this section. Currently, the ability to reply is reserved for registered members. Since this is an interesting topic, I'd encourage you to register with us so we can continue dialog on this subject. You say that our mission "falls short on the larger scheme of things." It would be nice if you could elaborate on how our mission falls short. What are we missing? I don't know anything about the protest in NJ since I was not there and I haven't had the time to read about it online. I agree, in order to change anything in this country, atheists do need to become more proactive. However, protests such as the one in NJ are a start and I applaud the efforts of the protest regardless of its size. There are atheists getting the message out in our newspapers and other publications. Take, for instance, this article written by Ed Weathers of the Memphis Flyer. That doesn't mean we couldn't use more press though. I agree, there seem to be more liberal rather than conservative atheists (at least that are outspoken). If you live in America, I think part of it has to do with how closely most American conservatives sympathize with the religious right. As a result, conservative atheists might feel alienated from a political group that they generally agree with otherwise. At least with respect to this website, I've made it offical policy to keep Atheists Anonymous completely nuetral in the political arena. Feel free to read this disclaimer I posted on the website just before the war with Iraq begun. It will help demonstrate my point. I think the true solution here is to set aside political differences and join together to fight for a common cause. Whether you are a conservative or a liberal non-believer, atheist civil rights and seperation of church and state will benefit you. I would much rather see atheists set aside partisan politics for the cause of atheist civil rights. I find myself at odds with this statement for several reasons. First, atheism isn't something one converts to. Atheists don't have a unified set of beliefs or principles. We only lack belief in god(s). The "waiting for theists to come to us" part also seems to concern me. I would hate to see atheists become the proselytizers rather than the Christians. I think we need some balance here. We need to make our voices heard but we don't need to become coercive either. Thanks again for your comments. I hope you will consider registering with this board so we can continue this conversation further.
|
|
|
Post by AuntieSocial on Dec 29, 2003 17:11:31 GMT -5
I have found that there are a lot more atheistic views in the newspapers in recent months. This could be backlash from several court cases that are, or were, being heard, but the net result is “the word getting out.” A friend of mine, in Buffalo, NY, writes frequently to the Buffalo News, either as a letter to the editor or as opinion pieces. I have submitted an op-ed to several papers (though I haven’t had one published yet …) There was an interesting exchange recently in The Illinois Leader (Illinois’ Conservative News Source). The full thread of articles is as follows: Will Christ disappear from Christmas this year? By Dan Zanoza (Illinois Leader Columnist)This prompted a letter from Larry Darby, former director of American Atheists and current President of the Atheist Law Center, Inc. The propaganda of Christianity, by Larry Darby (Alabama)Adam Deadmond replied from the theist camp with Hey Mr. Atheist, prove Christianity is a myth, by Adam Deadmond (Illinois)This brought on a flurry of responses from the atheists: Wednesday, December 10, 2003The fable of Adam and Eve, by Dave Stroud (Utah) & God, Santa, and the Loch Ness Monster, by Bob Scherago (Virginia)Thursday, December 11, 2003Although the atom can be split, and the universe scanned, I see no god, by Wayne Ward (Alabama) & Forbidding public funding of religion should be religiously enforced, by Anne Lieb (Florida)Friday, December 12, 2003Christianity: Cheap imitation, by Vic Powell (Alabama) & Christianity is not just a hoax, it is an ugly hoax, by Bruce Driggers (Alabama) & U. S. is not a democracy but a Constitutional Republic, by Jeffrey Babbitt (Illinois)Additionally, Adam Deadmond’s article was critiqued on About.com by Austine Cline. His rebuttal can be found at Christianity as MythologyAlthough I agree that more can be done to advance a positive view of atheists in the media, I do feel that an effort is being made. As for this board … I don’t see it as a place to ‘proselytize’ to the theists. Although we welcome their participation and input, I see this as a place for atheists to share ideas, ask questions, test theories and just hang out … in a positive, discrimination-free environment. I agree with Maverick, atheism isn’t something one converts to. It isn’t a religion. It has no dogma or doctrines. It is merely the default position and the position some of us have returned to. I do not seek to convert people to my way of thinking. I see my role, as an atheist, as one who will ask questions and help provide answers … if the person is willing to and ready to question their faith. If I did anything more than that, wouldn’t I be indoctrinating as well? I would also like you to join the board so we can discuss this further. Do you have suggestions on how we, as a group and as individuals, could go about 'spreading the word' without infringing on the rights that are so dear to us all?
|
|
|
Post by Arutha on Jan 28, 2004 16:02:11 GMT -5
Digging up the dead. I have noticed in the Opion collums of the local paper a large debate over god with a number of nuts writing in and being largely discredited as fools after just writing basically "the bible says so" its great to see people standing up for themself and not worring about "the bible says you will go to hell" i knew i should have kept them for you. Also a number of editorials have mentioned such. I think the Atheist movement in Australia is getting some backing
|
|
|
Post by AuntieSocial on Mar 9, 2004 8:21:05 GMT -5
That's great to hear, Arutha! I'm seeing a lot of that in the North America press as well. If an article/opinion editorial has a particular religious bias, you can count on there being letters in response.
|
|
|
Post by slavsoul on Sept 19, 2004 16:26:44 GMT -5
interesting discussion on what atheists are doing as far as "spreading the word," but I am still confused about what "the word" means. is it basically the message that it is all right to be an atheist or is it an encouragement to feel silly about being a believer? is it a movement for promulagating sympathy towards atheists? and as you say, it is not a doctrine, but can we really talk about atheists as a group, like a group of Presbyterians or a group of Hassidic Jews, since there are bound to be myriad differences in opinion, even among persons who share the common belief that there is/are no god/s. this discussion should be kept going, it is very informative.
|
|
|
Post by AuntieSocial on Sept 26, 2004 18:34:31 GMT -5
interesting discussion on what atheists are doing as far as "spreading the word," but I am still confused about what "the word" means. is it basically the message that it is all right to be an atheist Yes I wouldn't say that we seek to make believers feel silly. However, some of the ancient beliefs are indeed silly. There has been a lot of press lately about only Creationism being taught in public schools. The literal renditions (both of them) in the Bible are quite silly and contrary to what science can tell a child about the world in which they live. There has also been a great deal of instances when the myth, "there are no atheists in foxholes," has been espoused in the media. I personally know several men and women who had no belief in a deity when they went to war and returned home with the same opinion. These men and women saw the horrors of Korea, Viet Nam and other military actions. They held friends while they died in their arms. Those dying friends called out to their mothers and medics ... based on one friend's observation, "There are no gods in foxholes, only agonizing finality" Equality would be nice. I, personally, don't require anybody's sympathy. Correct, there is no universal doctrines associated with atheists. However, there are a lot of atheists universally. One can't say what 'all atheists' believe, just as one can't say what 'all theists', or even 'all Baptists' believe. The fact is, WE exist. People should be aware of this fact. We are everyday human beings. We are members of the same communities as theists. We are taxpayers, students, fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, children. And in a lot of cases, we are secular humanists. We care about this world, all of its inhabitants and the future. We are not the monsters that religion would like to make us. We hold ourselves to ethical codes, even if we do not subscribe to the codes the religions put forth as 'the divinely given code.'
|
|
|
Post by slavsoul on Oct 4, 2004 0:30:17 GMT -5
Thank you, dear Auntie Social for your comments and replies. No, atheists are not the monsters that they are sometimes made out to be. Atheists used to be classified along with heretics and devil-worshippers in the good old days of yore and were tortured and burned along with witches and other "godless" creatures. Then when that practice died out and atheists were free, more or less, to speak out, some created hatred and outrage, like O'Hare. With the coming-out of the fundamentalists, more outrage is provoked whenever an atheist or atheists call upon the principle of the separation of Church and State to make certain changes, such as dropping "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, or banning prayer from public schools. I wonder just how far the theocratic trend will go in these times of uncertainty and terror. The way that this country is supporting a man who has told us that he believes that God is guiding him makes me very nervous. And I would far rather have an atheist guiding the country with wisdom, common sense, reason, the ability to know when s/he is wrong, and compassion.
|
|
|
Post by ErikaLee on Jan 23, 2005 21:30:26 GMT -5
The President saying that God guides him doesn't scare me. Christians, and other monotheistic Religions believe that all things happen because of God's will. They look to God as a source of wisdom and comfort. That would only be a scary concept if he or anyone else was using God as an excuse to eradicate those who don't share the same beliefs... and there are people who are doing just that. THOSE people I'm afraid of, because they will take whatever means necessary to reach their goal. I take the same stand with "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. I don't have to say it. No one is forcing me to. And I could walk around all day chanting it and I'm not going to convert to Christianity, so that doesn't scare me either. The issue with that, as sad as it is, is directed only at Christians, when there are other Monotheistic Religions out there... but I see it as just another excuse for Atheists to attack Christianity out of a grudge they aren't willing to let go of and no one knows the reasons for anyway.
EL
|
|
|
Post by droskey on Jan 24, 2005 12:49:55 GMT -5
I wouldn't say that we should be scared of anyone who professes a religious belief. Nor should we denegrate that belief. However, we should be suspicious of anyone that wants to make their religious dogma an official part of government. That should raise red flags.
ErikaLee
I understand what you are saying, Erika. I would prefer to get into a twist over something more overt than the Pledge of Allegiance or what's printed on money. However, the question remains, why does the "official" Pledge of Allegiance say "one nation under god". Why not "one nation under Allah" or "one nation under Vishnu" or "one nation under gods". Or even better, just "one nation". The pledge alienates sections of the society in a very subtle way. What's more, this was not an issue with the original pledge. The words were inserted as a type of religious test.
Also, if you believe that the fact that our pledge and our money advertise for Christianity doesn't have a negative affect on nonbelivers, you'd be mistaken. Numerous times I have witnessed nonbelievers protesting some sort of religious bigotry only to be slapped with the comments, "This is one nation under God. If you don't believe, why don't you just leave." Or the comment, "Our money says 'In God We Trust', so if you don't believe in God, don't spend American money." In truth, these are the kinds of attitudes that were meant to be incited by these two phrases. They were not inserted, contrary to popular belief, to express America's religious heritage.
Cheers.
|
|