Are you ready for Atheist PAC?

posted at 8:01 pm on September 19, 2013 by Allahpundit

A momentous day, my friends. Not until we atheists are as free as every other interest group to buy and sell our elected leaders can America truly call itself “free.”

A toast — to freedom:

The Freethought Equality Fund said in a press release that its goal is “to change the face of American politics by supporting candidates who identify as humanist, atheist, agnostic, as well as those who share our goals of protecting the separation of church of state.”…

“Faced with the prejudices that it was supposedly impossible to be good without a god, freethinkers of all stripes, under the names atheist and agnostic, skeptic, non-theist, nonbeliever, and more, began to come out of the woodwork, to face the prejudice we’re seeing head on,” [American Humanist Association Executive Director Roy Speckhardt] said…

Speckhardt said he knows of at least two dozen current members of Congress who are “closeted” atheists

Although all the candidates the PAC listed as support targets were Democrats, and the list of issues is solidly Democratic, the organizers said they’re hopeful a GOP candidate will strike their fancy one day. Currently, not one Republican member of the House passes the Freethought Equality Fund’s scorecard test.

There are already lobbyist groups like Americans United devoted to church-and-state policy issues. The novelty of this one, it seems, is that they’re going to focus on getting closeted atheists in Congress to come out. I expect they’ll have a few, but only a few, successes. As noted in the Free Beacon piece, the taboo has quietly weakened a bit over the past few years. Pete Stark declared himself a nonbeliever six years ago and was reelected twice afterward in his deep blue California district with 70+ percent of the vote before losing a Democratic primary last year. Kyrsten Sinema is a freshman in the House who got elected last year despite lots of chatter about her maybe being an atheist. Her campaign manager “clarified” by telling reporters at the time that she rejects the label, but that appeared to be a half-assed attempt to sidestep the subject so that it didn’t become an issue in November. She lists “none” as her religion and didn’t use a Bible in January when being sworn in by Boehner. That’s bolder than most other secret atheist reps are willing to be, but emblematic of the err-on-the-side-of-ambiguity position that they take. In fact, when Pew canvassed Congress two years ago on their religious beliefs, they got a big fat zero willing to admit to atheism or “unaffiliated.” The mismatch between the percentage who belong to a certain religious denomination among the general population versus the percentage in Congress who belong to it was no more than roughly six percent at the extremes — except in the case of “unaffiliated,” a category that includes 16 percent of the public and zero-point-zero percent of the national legislature. The best Pew could do was find six members who said “don’t know/refused.”

Which is to say, the factoid about two dozen atheists lurking in Congress is plausible based on polling data. Why any of them would emerge because there’s now a PAC around willing to throw a few thousand bucks at them for doing so, though, I have no idea. Copping to nonbelief will remain a liability for a pol in all but the bluest districts. Even Barney Frank, who came out as gay years ago, waited until he was safely out of Congress to come out as atheist. If the “new atheism” hasn’t put enough “identity” pressure on reluctant congressmen to say it loud, “I’m atheist and I’m proud,” this won’t.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Ummmmm…..how does an “atheist” take an oath of office that usually ends with “so help me God”?

While I realize they’d want to change the wording of the oath, don’t they first have to be in office? And to be in office, don’t they have to take the oath?

GarandFan on September 19, 2013 at 8:04 PM

For a few million in donations, I would claim to be a green frog.

faraway on September 19, 2013 at 8:06 PM

If their goal is to abolish any PUBLIC invocation or recognition of God, then I oppose ‘em … period.

If that’s not their goal, then what is?

listens2glenn on September 19, 2013 at 8:10 PM

As long as they push for the end of ObamaCare and a return to a 2006 Budget I don’t care if they support SATAN….of course if their whole objective is to “out” Closet Atheists and promote their whacka-doodle We Hate the Flying Spaghetti Monster Agenda, but Won’t Say Much About Muslims, Because We Value Our Heads then I guess I’ll just point and laugh.

JFKY on September 19, 2013 at 8:14 PM

…I would claim to be a green frog.

faraway on September 19, 2013 at 8:06 PM

You could always claim you got better.

JFKY on September 19, 2013 at 8:14 PM

Oh crap, how will we deal with this mega-threat of an Athiest PAC? What if they present a humungous, gymormous threat like the Coffee Party????

What the f**k are we gonna do???

Shaughnessy on September 19, 2013 at 8:15 PM

Freethought.

Just don’t go thinking about God.

CurtZHP on September 19, 2013 at 8:16 PM

Speckhardt said he knows of at least two dozen current members of Congress who are “closeted” atheists…

These have to be Republicans. No Democrat would dare risk heresy by defying “the one.”

JellyToast on September 19, 2013 at 8:18 PM

Cool.

GarandFan on September 19, 2013 at 8:04 PM

There are already alternate oaths available.

mythicknight on September 19, 2013 at 8:18 PM

Ummmmm…..how does an “atheist” take an oath of office that usually ends with “so help me God”?

GarandFan on September 19, 2013 at 8:04 PM

I suppose it’s just words to them, so it doesn’t really matter.

Besides, that part of the oath isn’t them saying they’ll be doing anyhting in particular. I’m more concerned about the Democrats who say they’ll “support and defend the Constitution”.

malclave on September 19, 2013 at 8:19 PM

“Freethinkers”

LMFAO!

Murphy9 on September 19, 2013 at 8:20 PM

What’s their point? A PAC? Why, what’s their point?

Lourdes on September 19, 2013 at 8:23 PM

What’s their point? A PAC? Why, what’s their point?

Lourdes on September 19, 2013 at 8:23 PM

Hey! Separation of Church and State and all.

This Atheist PAC is caught in their own, self-made double-negative…

Lourdes on September 19, 2013 at 8:24 PM

PutzPAC

Pork-Chop on September 19, 2013 at 8:24 PM

What’s the big deal?

Atheists have the same right to organize and support candidates as any other group of Americans.

Have at it.

AZCoyote on September 19, 2013 at 8:24 PM

Change all the oaths to end with, “and put me in prison if I lie” — and I’ll vote for Cthulhu.

Axe on September 19, 2013 at 8:25 PM

Bob, the Big Nothing, the Spaghetti Monster…Atheist PAC…they’re STILL all “religious” by definition: believe in God or don’t, declaring ANY BELIEF, even “Atheism,” is still declaration of religious belief.

Lourdes on September 19, 2013 at 8:26 PM

Do atheists believe in “thou shall not kill”?

faraway on September 19, 2013 at 8:26 PM

Atheists have the same right to organize and support candidates as any other group of Americans.

Have at it.

AZCoyote on September 19, 2013 at 8:24 PM

Yeah no one’s denying their 1st Amendment Right to organize, petition, assemble or speak…just wondering WHY?

JFKY on September 19, 2013 at 8:28 PM

What’s the big deal?

Atheists have the same right to organize and support candidates as any other group of Americans.

Have at it.

AZCoyote on September 19, 2013 at 8:24 PM

I second that.

JetBoy on September 19, 2013 at 8:29 PM

Do atheists believe in “thou shall not kill”?

faraway on September 19, 2013 at 8:26 PM

I’m not sure Jews or Christians, do, why? And isn’t it more correctly translated as “Thou shall not commit murder?”

JFKY on September 19, 2013 at 8:29 PM

A new group to help publicly persecute Christians and yet remain conspicuously silent on muslims? Yeah. As a conservative, I can’t see how that’s anything but great. /s

How long before it’s merely another Soros-funded progressive puppet?

ROCnPhilly on September 19, 2013 at 8:38 PM

What’s their point? A PAC? Why, what’s their point?

Lourdes on September 19, 2013 at 8:23 PM

Yeah no one’s denying their 1st Amendment Right to organize, petition, assemble or speak…just wondering WHY?

JFKY on September 19, 2013 at 8:28 PM

Because they are Atheists, and want to do things as Atheists. Like some Republicans who want to be political as The Gay, or some veterans want to ride motorcycles as Veterans. Some people enjoy their cliques so much, they identify with them, and want to do everything as them. The rest is just rationalization. In my opinion.

/just-talkin’

Axe News Service
Stating the Obvious Since ’69

Axe on September 19, 2013 at 8:39 PM

What’s the big deal?

Atheists have the same right to organize and support candidates as any other group of Americans.

Have at it.

AZCoyote on September 19, 2013 at 8:24 PM

Freedom of Association indeed.

Murphy9 on September 19, 2013 at 8:39 PM

Atheism. The accepted intolerance.

smoothsailing on September 19, 2013 at 8:41 PM

Change all the oaths to end with, “and put me in prison if I lie” — and I’ll vote for Cthulhu.

Axe on September 19, 2013 at 8:25 PM

I think it was GenCon ’92 where we had a nomination party for Cthulhu. I bought a campaign T-shirt and everything.

Slogan was “why settle for the Lesser Evil?”

I even remember the chant upon the nomination… “No more years! No more years!”

malclave on September 19, 2013 at 8:41 PM

Why exactly would an atheist donate money to this PAC? What exactly are they trying to accomplish that would have any tangible benefit to the donor? Or is this one of those, “I don’t feel good about myself, so I need government affirmation of what I do/believe” that other groups (e.g., gays) are always pushing for?

besser tot als rot on September 19, 2013 at 8:43 PM

What is the claim to being “freethinkers?”

Murphy9 on September 19, 2013 at 8:43 PM

“No more years! No more years!”

malclave on September 19, 2013 at 8:41 PM

lol

Axe on September 19, 2013 at 8:44 PM

Are you ready for Atheist PAC?

To me they’re just anti-Christian Marxists. You’re certainly free to not believe, but going out there trying to gain power so you can crush the ability of others to believe is just typical Socialism with all desire for ego satisfaction, accumulation of wealth you did not earn and power over other people that goes with that perverted facet of Rationalism.

Dr. ZhivBlago on September 19, 2013 at 8:44 PM

What is the claim to being “freethinkers?”

Murphy9 on September 19, 2013 at 8:43 PM

Anyone who thinks diffently should be imprisoned.

Hey, it really is just Marxism in a pretty new poke.

ROCnPhilly on September 19, 2013 at 8:52 PM

I thought we had and atheist in the White House now. Am I missing something?

rich8450 on September 19, 2013 at 8:52 PM

Oh crap, how will we deal with this mega-threat of an Athiest PAC? What if they present a humungous, gymormous threat like the Coffee Party????

What the f**k are we gonna do???

Shaughnessy on September 19, 2013 at 8:15 PM

Here is my worthless LOL/+1 response: LOL,+1

Of all the snark I was trying to compose, it just will never, ever, ever get better than this.

Shaugnessy wins the internet for the day, just sorry I did not acknowledge it earlier.

RushBaby on September 19, 2013 at 8:53 PM

You could always claim you got better.

JFKY on September 19, 2013 at 8:14 PM

Or, you could use Obama’s ploy and simply say your position “evolved” over time. That pretty much allows one to take a position on any issue and later change that position without having to explain why.

ScottiesRule on September 19, 2013 at 8:58 PM

I thought we had and atheist in the White House now. Am I missing something?

rich8450 on September 19, 2013 at 8:52 PM

Obama’s almost certainly not Christian…but what he is exactly isn’t really known at this time.

ScottiesRule on September 19, 2013 at 8:59 PM

ScottiesRule on September 19, 2013 at 8:58 PM

Great point, I shoudda used that with the Partner, “Yes, Partner I entered into our relationship on the basis of monogamy, but my position on that has ‘evolved.’”

Partner, “My position on not shooting you has ALSO ‘evolved.’”

JFKY on September 19, 2013 at 9:02 PM

As more than one person has already noted, I really can’t see the objective behind this effort unless it is to strip away entirely all references to God and/or religion…everywhere.

Doesn’t surprise me that there are a couple dozen atheist Democrats. How else do you explain a party that is willing to kill 1 million babies every year even if some of those babies actually are born alive and utter their first cry? Anyone who does that has no heart…has no soul.

ScottiesRule on September 19, 2013 at 9:03 PM

Take money from democratics? Perhaps put up their own candidates to split off some of the vote for democratics? Why not?

slickwillie2001 on September 19, 2013 at 9:11 PM

Freethinkers demand conformity above all else…

As I said in the headlines:
“to change the face of American politics by supporting candidates who identify as shiite, sunni, or any flavor of Islam as well as those who share our goals of establishing Sharia law.”

Does that sound stupid? Insidious?

So does this.

Skywise on September 19, 2013 at 9:13 PM

Anyone who feels the need to profess their “non-belief” is just making the claim on faith.

Atheism is a stupid religion: the belief in nothing.

njrob on September 19, 2013 at 9:42 PM

I’m not a free thinker.

You have to pay me. Then I MIGHT think if I feel like it.

SparkPlug on September 19, 2013 at 10:21 PM

I have a fish tank and one of the fish is an atheist.

He thinks the fish tank just happened by itself. He also thinks the other fish are stupid for thinking otherwise.

SparkPlug on September 19, 2013 at 10:24 PM

Even if I were an atheist (I’m not) just looking at most of the people who proclaim themselves to be would shame me into remaining silent.

cynccook on September 19, 2013 at 10:30 PM

I have a fish tank and one of the fish is an atheist.

He thinks the fish tank just happened by itself. He also thinks the other fish are stupid for thinking otherwise.

SparkPlug on September 19, 2013 at 10:24 PM

Hmmmm, you could test his resolve by buying a bigger fish. As your atheist fish finds himself cornered between the little castle and the wall of the tank and is facing the gaping maw of doom, he may change his mind about all that.

cynccook on September 19, 2013 at 10:34 PM

Even if I were an atheist (I’m not) just looking at most of the people who proclaim themselves to be would shame me into remaining silent.

cynccook on September 19, 2013 at 10:30 PM

Some atheists want to make sure the word carries anti-theism as a connotation. It shouldn’t. There’s nothing about espousing a belief that requires lampooning and belittling people that espouse a conflicting belief, even if one finds the conflicting belief itself completely untenable.

But, again — lifestyle. Belittling and lampooning is part of their “free inquiry/rationalist” lifestyle, just like that strange “Christian” guy who’s so cold and hard that he’s creepy has the coldness and hardness built into his “true believer” lifestyle.

The world is full of unserious people. :)

. . . who are dangerous in large numbers.

Axe on September 19, 2013 at 10:42 PM

Free thought, eh? So another Democrat PAC, then.

flataffect on September 19, 2013 at 10:45 PM

How long will the IRS stall on approval for this PAC?
Will they ask them what they pray for? A list of contributors?
You know the rest.

countrybumpkin on September 19, 2013 at 10:47 PM

Speckhardt said he knows of at least two dozen current members of Congress who are “closeted” atheists…

That numbers a bit low but I’m wondering how many are “closeted” Satanists. That’s the real question.

Cleombrotus on September 19, 2013 at 10:55 PM

Speckhardt said he knows of at least two dozen current members of Congress who are “closeted” atheists…

It’s the same number of closeted countries supporting us against Syria…so they say.

Ronnie on September 19, 2013 at 11:53 PM

I have a fish tank and one of the fish is an atheist.He thinks the fish tank just happened by itself. He also thinks the other fish are stupid for thinking otherwise.SparkPlug on September 19, 2013 at 10:24 PM

Tell him God created the fish tank and when he says well who created God then you could say well he just happened by himself…that’ll show him.

:-)

Politricks on September 19, 2013 at 11:54 PM

Speckhardt said he knows of at least two dozen current members of Congress who are “closeted” atheists…

But who doesn’t know dozens of atheists who are really Hardshell Baptists?

Akzed on September 19, 2013 at 11:55 PM

“one nation, under nothing…”

Akzed on September 19, 2013 at 11:56 PM

I think its cute how Christians in this country claim to be persecuted yet I can’t recall one story where someone has reported being denied a service because their Christian.

Now on the other hand I have heard plenty of stories of supposed Christians denying services to people with beliefs different then there’s. (Gay Marriage, Plan B pills, Abortions, Etc)

What I don’t get is why people have it in their heads that their so important that they need to do Gods work for him. If there is a all knowing all powerful God he doesn’t need you to run around telling people their going to hell.

Here’s a question for you guys. If there is a God could he create a rock so big that even he couldn’t lift it?!

Politricks on September 19, 2013 at 11:59 PM

Do atheists believe in “thou shall not kill”? faraway on September 19, 2013 at 8:26 PM

Stalin: no.

Pol Pot: no.

Mao: no.

Castro: no.

Hitler: no.

Well, Hitler was a polytheist pagan so he doesn’t count.

Akzed on September 20, 2013 at 12:00 AM

To clarify my personal beliefs. I don’t believe in Religion. I believe we may have a creator but even if so that creator has a hands off approach. There is no one but other people on earth judging you for supposed “sins”. I think Religion was drummed up because its an easy way to lead weak mindes people. Its the same idea of telling kids they won’t get any presents from Santa if they’re bad. You won’t get into heaven if you’re bad.

Same thing.

Sheep.

Politricks on September 20, 2013 at 12:02 AM

Faraway.

I believe so. I believe most athesit live by the mantra treat others how you would like to be treated. I know I do.

I mean how many wars, murders, killings have happened in the name of Religion?

Politricks on September 20, 2013 at 12:04 AM

I think its cute how Christians in this country claim to be persecuted yet I can’t recall one story where someone has reported being denied a service because their Christian.

Too clever by half. NM Christian photog ruined for not serving at lesbian wedding. NY B&B ruined for not serving lesbian “newlyweds.” OR baker closed down for not serving homo wedding cake. IOW, for refusing to be enslaved, they were ruined.

Now on the other hand I have heard plenty of stories of supposed Christians denying services to people with beliefs different then there’s. (Gay Marriage, Plan B pills, Abortions, Etc)

Which is as it should be if one’s beliefs are actually going to be practiced.

What I don’t get is why people have it in their heads that their so important that they need to do Gods work for him.

It’s funny how atheists suppose that they know what Christians ought to be doing.

If there is a all knowing all powerful God he doesn’t need you to run around telling people their going to hell.

Despite His command for us to do so?

Here’s a question for you guys. If there is a God could he create a rock so big that even he couldn’t lift it? Politricks on September 19, 2013 at 11:59 PM

Huh, so you spent time in the freshman dorm too eh?

Answer: no, God cannot contradict Himself, nor is He absurd.

Also, find a dictionary and learn how to spell those pronouns.

Akzed on September 20, 2013 at 12:08 AM

Politricks on September 19, 2013 at 11:59 PM

So, you can barely speak English, but you’ve mastered theology? That seems unlikely.

Ronnie on September 20, 2013 at 12:15 AM

Politricks on September 19, 2013 at 11:59 PM

So, you can barely speak English, but you’ve mastered theology? That seems unlikely.

Ronnie on September 20, 2013 at 12:15 AM

Ha! I was just about to point out the same thing.

slickwillie2001 on September 20, 2013 at 12:45 AM

Here’s a question for you guys. If there is a God could he create a rock so big that even he couldn’t lift it?!
Politricks on September 19, 2013 at 11:59 PM

Just as soon as He’s done playing with a stick with only one end and talking to a married bachelor or any other logical contradictions that teenagers think clever when they first hear about them in their intro to logic class.

anuts on September 20, 2013 at 12:47 AM

Here’s a question for you guys. If there is a God could he create a rock so big that even he couldn’t lift it?! Politricks on September 19, 2013 at 11:59 PM

He made lotsa rocks that you can’t lift, Mr. I. M. Outahere.

Funny how atheists believe that if there were a God, he would be just as they imagine he should be.

Akzed on September 20, 2013 at 12:52 AM

I think its cute how Christians in this country claim to be persecuted yet I can’t recall one story where someone has reported being denied a service because their Christian.

Now on the other hand I have heard plenty of stories of supposed Christians denying services to people with beliefs different then there’s. (Gay Marriage, Plan B pills, Abortions, Etc)

What I don’t get is why people have it in their heads that their so important that they need to do Gods work for him. If there is a all knowing all powerful God he doesn’t need you to run around telling people their going to hell.

Here’s a question for you guys. If there is a God could he create a rock so big that even he couldn’t lift it?!

Politricks on September 19, 2013 at 11:59 PM

I think it’s remarkable that you’ve managed the rare feat of misusing all 3 parts of the homonyms they’re, their, and there. Most people can only misuse a couple of them in the same post.

There Goes the Neighborhood on September 20, 2013 at 1:02 AM

Professed atheists should have their franchise suspended. They cannot be trusted to not vote to usurp Americans’ unalienable rights.

What argument can an atheist offer that explains why the govt does not have the right to take away our unalienable rights?

Without God there are no God-given rights. The atheist worships at the altar of govt. To them, all rights are govt-given, aka, civil rights. Atheists cry out, “What govt giveth, govt taketh away…blessed be the name of the govt!”

TXJenny on September 20, 2013 at 1:18 AM

1. I find nothing intellectually intriguing about atheists, but if I were to embrace their ideas, it would be solely due to their universally endearing characteristic of condescension.

2. I would consider atheism if only Nietzsche had had the simple foresight to die for me.

3. There is an article on the internet entitled “The 50 Most Brilliant Atheists of All Time”. They might want to postpone that assessment until they can talk to the dead ones.

4. I suspect in the afterlife, “brilliant atheist” is an oxymoron.

jmad on September 20, 2013 at 1:24 AM

Pete Stark, Kyrsten Sinema, Barney Frank – yep, that’s just what we need – more atheists in Congress.

pearson on September 20, 2013 at 7:04 AM

“The will work to elect the nones …

Besides giving the growing percentage of Americans who identify as “nones” an opportunity to elect more candidates who share their values,

Say these things out loud. And laugh at how funny it is that it’s atheists that are tryign to do these things (not knocking atheists but again….say them out loud…)

DethMetalCookieMonst on September 20, 2013 at 7:23 AM

Here’s a question for you guys. If there is a God could he create a rock so big that even he couldn’t lift it?!

Politricks on September 19, 2013 at 11:59 PM

Too lazy to do your own metaphysical exercises?

zoyclem on September 20, 2013 at 7:42 AM

They will not stop until all opposing views are pushed behind closed doors.

DavidM on September 20, 2013 at 8:33 AM

Next up: the Satanist PAC.

David Blue on September 20, 2013 at 8:35 AM

I’m ready. There’s enough stupidity out there already.

Axeman on September 20, 2013 at 8:47 AM

Currently, not one Republican member of the House passes the Freethought Equality Fund’s scorecard test.

I’m pleasantly shocked.

GWB on September 20, 2013 at 9:30 AM

Here’s a question for you guys. If there is a God could he create a rock so big that even he couldn’t lift it?!

In 1974, I was a pot smoking, long-haired, skinny little punk at Messmer High School in Milwaukee. As most spoiled kids at the time, I had heard this question in one of George Carlin’s schticks on his AM/FM album, where he and the other kids in his own Catholic high school pelted an old priest with supposed unanswerable questions, this one the the most pressing….or so it seemed to a drug addled fourteen year old mind (in retrospect, I can brag that my Choom Gang got A’s at a difficult school).

So of course, I had to be a smart ass and try this question out at the beginning of freshman year on our own 83 year old priest as he passed out mimeographed sheets, our first “hit” of the day. I ejaculated the question (you must be a Catholic of a certain age to understand the choosing of that word) and he was non-plussed, continuing to pass out our huffable assignment and answering softly, “Of course the Almighty has decided made a rock he cannot lift. It is called human free will.”

Shaughnessy on September 20, 2013 at 11:01 AM

This group of atheists wants a total separation of church and state, yet they want to select elected leaders based solely on their religious views. Interesting approach.

Shump on September 20, 2013 at 11:20 AM

This group of atheists wants a total separation of church and state, yet they want to select elected leaders based solely on their religious views. Interesting approach. Shump on September 20, 2013 at 11:20 AM

There’s precedent for that.

“Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” -John Jay, First Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and co-author of the Federalist Papers, letter to Jedidiah Morse, 28 Feb 1797.

Akzed on September 20, 2013 at 12:35 PM

I think it’s remarkable that you’ve managed the rare feat of misusing all 3 parts of the homonyms they’re, their, and there. Most people can only misuse a couple of them in the same post.

There Goes the Neighborhood on September 20, 2013 at 1:02 AM

Hilarious!

thejackal on September 20, 2013 at 1:43 PM

Atheism is a stupid religion: the belief in nothing.

njrob on September 19, 2013 at 9:42 PM

Atheism is not the belief in nothing. It is simply the refusal to believe in leprechauns during adulthood. Atheists believe in any number of things: freedom, the dignity of the individual, basically anything. They just don’t believe in Cosmic Tinkerbell.

thejackal on September 20, 2013 at 1:52 PM

Although all the candidates the PAC listed as support targets were Democrats, and the list of issues is solidly Democratic, the organizers said they’re hopeful a GOP candidate will strike their fancy one day.

Sounds like the atheist klatch of the “Coffee Party”.

Atheism, as an identity–as a movement, very seldom has any conservative effect on communities “Why are people still doing X?” “When you speak to me, you can’t use your antiquated notions, which I don’t buy in to.” (Or I won’t speak in your system of metaphor and cultural symbols and icons!)

Liberals/progressives are the ones who believe that the culture is on the timeclock to “advance”, that everything deemed “antiquated” has a sunset period before it just should no longer be tolerated among people considered peers.

This is progressivism, this is elitism.

However this was sort of funny:

Faced with the prejudices that it was supposedly impossible to be good without a god, freethinkers of all stripes, under the names atheist and agnostic, skeptic, non-theist, nonbeliever, and more, began to come out of the woodwork, to face the prejudice we’re seeing head on

It’s funny, because without a standard, “good” is whatever an individual or a group of people decide it is. But if you attribute it to one group of people and not another, how can that not be pre-judged if you had an idea in your mind of what was good and what was not before you met an individual and decided that their behavior met up to or didn’t meet your expectations?

And it’s funny because their non-reflective complaint is that based on a system out of which primal and reactive prejudices are expressed they get a down vote instead of an upvote.

It’s also funny, because it is so paradism-blind that it can’t help swerving into the ditch in a form of straw man argument. Not enough people worth mention argue that people “without a god” cannot be good. Jews and Christians don’t think Bael is enough to qualify, and Muslims don’t think Jesus is enough either. Nobody is arguing that if you get yourself a god, you’ll be good.

Also, God is a feature of the universe, or he is not–same thing is true with one god of many: They either are independent features of the universe, or they are nothing. Nobody really “has” “a god”, so no one really is “without a god” any more than any other individual.

Axeman on September 20, 2013 at 4:55 PM

Atheism is not the belief in nothing. It is simply the refusal to believe in leprechauns during adulthood. Atheists believe in any number of things: freedom, the dignity of the individual, basically anything. They just don’t believe in Cosmic Tinkerbell.

thejackal on September 20, 2013 at 1:52 PM

Uhhh… Atheists can still believe in Leprechauns, Garden Gnomes, or that Toy Story is real, just as long as they “lack a belief in a God or gods”.

And they can believe in a Cosmic Tinkerbell, as long as they stipulate that it is not a god or gods.

You really need to brush up on the non-content of atheism.

If they can “believe in freedom” is it because other adults do–who also believe in “leprechauns” (apparently). Or because they’ve see “freedom”?

According to the etymological roots in Old English it means “exempt from, not in bondage,” so if you’ve seen people out of bondage, it’s a no-brainer to believe that people exist out of bondage and that the situation of being out of bondage exists. What is the belief?

By the way, nice straw man. I was talking about atheists’ facility with straw man arguments. Nice illustration.

Axeman on September 20, 2013 at 5:04 PM

Uhhh… Atheists can still believe in Leprechauns, Garden Gnomes, or that Toy Story is real, just as long as they “lack a belief in a God or gods”.

And they can believe in a Cosmic Tinkerbell, as long as they stipulate that it is not a god or gods.

You really need to brush up on the non-content of atheism.

If they can “believe in freedom” is it because other adults do–who also believe in “leprechauns” (apparently). Or because they’ve see “freedom”?

According to the etymological roots in Old English it means “exempt from, not in bondage,” so if you’ve seen people out of bondage, it’s a no-brainer to believe that people exist out of bondage and that the situation of being out of bondage exists. What is the belief?

By the way, nice straw man. I was talking about atheists’ facility with straw man arguments. Nice illustration.

Axeman on September 20, 2013 at 5:04 PM

Atheists. Look it up. It means one thing and one thing only: they do not believe in supernatural beings. A-theists.

Got it? Moron?

Go screaming strawman and whatever you like. Anyone with a brain and an education and a dictionary knows you are an idiot.

Again: Atheists: Do not believe in Cosmic Tinkerbell.

That’s all folks.

thejackal on September 20, 2013 at 5:46 PM

Atheists. Look it up. It means one thing and one thing only: they do not believe in supernatural beings. A-theists.

Got it? Moron?

Go screaming strawman and whatever you like. Anyone with a brain and an education and a dictionary knows you are an idiot.

Again: Atheists: Do not believe in Cosmic Tinkerbell.

That’s all folks.

thejackal on September 20, 2013 at 5:46 PM

Actually, it seems to mean a different thing to almost every atheist you can talk to.

But I’ll “look it up” for you. Dictionary.com says “a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.” So “denies” or “disbelieves”, that’s active. World English dictionary has “a person who does not believe in God or gods” so that’s a person in a state. That’s a definition I’ve often heard: a lack of belief in Gods or gods.

Merriam Webster has “a person who believes that God does not exist” and give the “full definition” as “one who believes that there is no deity”.

So where did you hear that leprechauns and fairies were “gods”, or qualified as “supreme beings”?

Concluding that gods are supernatural beings, atheists don’t believe in gods, therefore atheists don’t believe in supernatural beings leaves you with an illicit major fallacy.

You seem to fit the rule that most atheists I run into aren’t too good at understanding how words work, so if this range of definitions fits your meaning of “one thing and one thing only”, you have a pretty weak understanding of “one”, “thing” or perhaps “only”.

atheism.about.com has

The more common understanding of atheism among atheists is “not believing in any gods.” No claims or denials are made – an atheist is any person who is not a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called “weak” or “implicit” atheism. There is also a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called “strong” or “explicit” atheism. Here, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods – making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point.

So how can you get two different interpretations out of something that means “one thing and one thing only”?

Especially in your own application: although the target that all those definitions straddle expressly say something about deities, it also implies any kind of spiritual being whatsoever.

If you are right and your definition is right, if it means one thing and one thing only, it kind of suggests it’s one pretty dumb thing.

Besides, you totally failed to say anything cogent about your “belief in freedom” in view of my skeptical challenge. You’re a lightweight.

Axeman on September 20, 2013 at 9:20 PM

And it’s funny because their non-reflective complaint is that based on a system out of which primal and reactive prejudices are expressed they get a down vote instead of an upvote.

Axeman on September 20, 2013 at 4:55 PM

Huh.

Again: Atheists: Do not believe in Cosmic Tinkerbell.

thejackal on September 20, 2013 at 5:46 PM

Neither do theists.

Axe on September 20, 2013 at 9:43 PM

And it’s funny because their non-reflective complaint is that based on a system out of which primal and reactive prejudices are expressed they get a down vote instead of an upvote.

Axeman on September 20, 2013 at 4:55 PM

Huh.

Atheists often, in their own view, view religion as a sort of outlet for prejudice and id-driven feelings, herding and tribal instinct, etc.

The irony is that they feel slighted by a cluster of reactions that they don’t respect giving them the downvote.

When atheists typically say “good” they don’t mean good in any sense that has a definite meaning (the type of meaning that they supposedly demand). Theists often do, whether or not that meaning is fully comprehensible to the person referencing the system. Atheists mean “good” as generally judged by humans and consistent with what is judged the best of human principles (by humans). However, this is exactly the type of “Good” taken to task by Nietzsche as meaningless in Beyond Good and Evil. Where Nietzsche argued that the words themselves are expressions of like and dislike (prejudices and preferences).

But the deep irony is the self-same “wide complement” that atheists use as their chief dodge: that atheism only entails a lack of belief in God or gods, a negative statement which encompasses the entire complement of all states of believing in a God or gods. Which justifies my contention that Atheism, having no content (which atheists must defend), does not compel one to disbelieve that toys spring to life when you leave the room. Atheist prudes will tell you that Atheism is NOT empiricism or scientific worldview.

The wide complement means that if there is not objective thing such as “good” and atheists prefer objective concepts, then they have to realize that without an unknown x factor, no one CAN be “good” (although people can be judged “good” by cultural rules.) Because a state of having to definite meaning of “good” besides that a certain group of people prefer you, is in the complement of somebody having a definite quality of being good.

This is where atheists often become quasi- and cryptic 17th century rationalists arguing that “Reason Itself” dictates a certain thing and not another (Being an actual 17th century rationalist would require having to argue something, not stealthy at all). However, those people are blithely unaware that the effect of Kant’s masterpiece “Critique of Pure Reason”, did not simply challenge a naive view of ethics (which is often the only modernist takeaway), but actually was what it said it was on the tin. It was a critique of anything that could be called “pure reason”, a completely a posteriori Nirvana of the illiterate graffiti artists of today that call themselves “free thinkers” and “skeptics”.

Nietzsche was the dawn of a model of the completely particulate world a world of happenstance and description, the conformity by separate members of a species being shaped by the same environment producing reproducible results with variation. Why “Pure Reason” fails in Kant’s analysis is understood more clearly by that particulate world that we live in, and through the 20th-century mathematics of Computability theory and, specifically, Goedel’s Incompleteness (which caused Bertrand Russell to comtemplate suicide for his many years of strutting on the other side–interestingly enough, Goedel is also said to have claimed that he produced a mathematical proof of the existence of God, no atheist he.)

This is why the pre-eminent philosophers of naturalism today at least genuflect toward the unreliability of the brain, by which they form their arguments. In the end, their argument is that with such a dumb brain, keeping it to simple, provable concepts avoids error and has at least shown some success in Western History (which, ironically, many of them, as liberals, discount on the other side). Which is not as proven as the entire history, most technology and advances in mathematics were done before the advent of popular atheism. And simply using our dumb brains to look at what atheism hath wraught leads us to look at Lenin, Stalin and Mao–which atheists stipplers warn us is not strictly academic atheism.

But, that objection itself is wholly ignorant and emerges outside of the idea that we baby the dumb brain which can only see trends and semblances and track records and describe them–that academic abstractions are mainly thoughts in the brain, and can only be descriptions of events in the world, which would have to be backed up by empirical evidence–which resides in the same future lala land of liberalism.

See, if on a base level near-positivists argue that nothing has meaning outside of what is presented in the real world “atheism” is nothing but the sum behavior of people who identify as atheists. This actually fits their chief dodge/complement better than jackals noise about atheism meaning one thing and one thing only.

In a Darwinian world, can we really say that “human” means one thing and one thing only”? No. It means a variation of discrete bodies which have a phenotypic similarity based on a genotypic similarity. Similarity is not identity.

Atheists often claim that theirs is a “scientific” worldview. Yet one thing they trumpet about Science is that it responds empirical data and the groundwork done by scientists and even to criticism, by which it reforms itself. Atheists are often ignorant of the implications of Goedel, Turing, Rice and many others about the gaps in our ability to compute definite things, often ignorant of true skeptical inquiry (such that Kant’s cheif point sort of invalidates his criticism of the Golden Rule, as it was an illustration of “pure reason” which is ultimately suspect under his methodology). And atheists generally exhibit anything but an acceptance and reform based on criticism of any type. This is one thing that the Central Dodge of Atheism allows of them is that whenever challenged to defend something, retreat behind the wide complement of all states that fall under atheism and then state that nothing specifically is implied or claimed, and that aggregate behavior of atheism doesn’t exist because it is not the rarified strict definition (Central Dodge) of atheism.

And as I said before, when faced with the full degree of skeptical inquiry, will often claw back 17th century rationalism to assert their mastery over the human swamp of existence.

But we students of Western thought know the damage that Nietzsche and Goedel and Turing did to modernist thought, because modernists like Russell began to reform their thought into what would become the stillborn Logical Positivism, which said that in order to argue “true” or “false” we first must argue “meaning” or “meaningless”. The “meaningless” was a way to indicate all things that weren’t directly comprehensible and clearly understood.

Axeman on September 21, 2013 at 11:00 AM

Axeman on September 21, 2013 at 11:00 AM

Thank you.

njrob on September 21, 2013 at 10:19 PM