Hi there. Just wanted to let you know there is now a progressive political party out there that takes an Atheistic point of view. If you want to get involved and actively protect your rights in this post-bush age of creeping theocracy, there's a place to do it.
We're on Facebook under National Atheist Party. It's a closed group due to trolls, but ask me and I'll get you in. Just mention this discussion post and the nexus!

Tags: atheism, politics, theocracy

Views: 224

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

great!  I'm there!

While I totally agree that atheist views are hardly very conducive to political interconnectedness and that atheist view-points might distact from other more salient topics of discussion, I have felt in recent years that until someone takes a stand on the specifically non-religious approach to governance and in fact details ideological trespasses on human rights/education as the bona fide enemy of science and progress, that we will go nowhere as a nation.

I feel that the sad truth is that here, in the year 2011, we are struggling to attain a level of open mindedness that was known several times before in history,  but that now stands threatened by conservatives and liberals alike, both of whom either want to invade every corner of our lives with the judgements of the corporate church or that traditions which infringe on us culturally should be preserved because the religious views upon which they are founded always deserve a "free pass" and be must be portayed as positive treasures of our rich cultural pasts. blah blah blah!

Atheism is a necessity for the next stage in human cultural evolution.

Please don't take on "Atheist" as a label for a political party. If you want to start a political party that happens to support atheism/secularism, that's fine, and I'm all for it. However we already have a hard enough time explaining to theists what defines an atheist and what doesn't, and labeling a political party "Atheist" will just be throwing gasoline on that fire.

 

When it comes to politics, you're not going to have all atheists agreeing with you, and I doubt they would appreciate having to defend themselves in conversations like, "I'm not an Atheist, I'm just a non-theist."

 

I appreciate where you're coming from, but this is not the correct way to approach the issue.

I don't think this is a very practical idea. The only similarity atheists share is that they don't believe in god(s) and even then you have some different degrees of how people approach the matter. I don't understand what the atheistic point of view is beyond that, especially when you can have conservatives, liberal, center, etc atheists. I really do not think a political party under the name of "atheism" is really the way to go. You want people to unite under idevs, not a label. It is already difficult enough to explain to the layperson what atheism actually means-now there's a political party? Oh jeez. Honest intention. Incorrect method imo.
Well, LOL, you're both plainly wrong, because the party exists and it HAS a platform that was voted upon by atheists. We've already had all the arguments about the name and the issues and the party is here and growing. Check us out, read the platform, get to know the members - THEN make your decision. It's hardly rational to reject out of hand what you haven't investigated. :)

www.facebook.com/national.atheist.party and www.usanap.net

Pro tip: If you're trying to recruit do not say to your potential constituents "you're plainly wrong LOL".

 

It seems like the party's focus is ridding religious bias from government, but there is nothing else to the platform, which I suspect is because the opinions of different atheists vary. Furthermore that position is faulty for it kind of implies that one can just simply let go of their personal philosophies during serious conversations. Honestly you guys are better off as a lobby group. Heck, this doesn't even sound too different from the concept of the american atheists association but with slightly different statements and it being a political party.

 

I don't see the point of this being a political party especially from what I see from the front page lacking in any big political stances (i.e. economy-you say economic responsibility but that topic has such a broad range of ideas in which it seems you guys haven't delved into). Your platform says nothing. It's bland. I'll say it again, the opinions of atheists are so vast because nothing else really unites us outside of a disbelief, which btw, is valued differently in each atheist. I don't think my philosophical stance on the question of "is there a god?" should be a drive in politics nor do I not want that philosophical stance to be associated with a political stance. all in all, color me unconverted.

I keep forgetting to patent it.
and yet the tea party became so sucessful...well sort of...but the idea of being a lobbying group isn't a totally bad one. Maybe instead of a lobbying group just more of a grass-roots organized political dissent thingy where local groups kind of organically form there own prevailing opinions which they then use to clobber everyone else that dares disagree with them...hmmm...(which I guess would be just like the tea-party).
MolotovDerp and The Nerd - I'm not recruiting. You will join or you won't. I'm simply correcting you about your statements. The party platform is contained in the Notes on the main page. You can't fit the entire platform, which consists of consensus atheist opinion on 19 campaign fronts, in the intro to the page. "Like" the Facebook page and dig through the notes. "Unlike" it when you're done, if you want.

Also, the purpose of the party is to be a voting "bloc" - a demographic that has not been used in swing votes before.
True that!  Voting blocs DO work-and we won't get any recognition if we sit back and remained undefined! 

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

Latest Activity

Joan Denoo replied to Grinning Cat's discussion Greta Christina: Why Being Liberal Really Is Better Than Being Conservative in the group Politics, Economics, and Religion
30 minutes ago
Tom Sarbeck replied to Grinning Cat's discussion Greta Christina: Why Being Liberal Really Is Better Than Being Conservative in the group Politics, Economics, and Religion
1 hour ago
Grinning Cat replied to Grinning Cat's discussion Greta Christina: Why Being Liberal Really Is Better Than Being Conservative in the group Politics, Economics, and Religion
1 hour ago
Luara replied to Daniel W's discussion Are same sex marriages more stable than so-called traditional marriages? in the group LGBTQI atheists, nontheists, and friends
1 hour ago
sk8eycat replied to Joan Denoo's discussion The Bible is not Great by Soren Sagan in the group ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN
2 hours ago
Joan Denoo replied to Grinning Cat's discussion Greta Christina on "Why Being Liberal Really Is Better Than Being Conservative" in the group Politics, Economics, and Religion
2 hours ago
Luara replied to Daniel W's discussion Are same sex marriages more stable than so-called traditional marriages? in the group LGBTQI atheists, nontheists, and friends
2 hours ago
sk8eycat replied to Joan Denoo's discussion The Bible is not Great by Soren Sagan in the group ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN
2 hours ago
Joan Denoo replied to Grinning Cat's discussion Greta Christina on "Why Being Liberal Really Is Better Than Being Conservative" in the group Politics, Economics, and Religion
2 hours ago
Tom Sarbeck commented on Loren Miller's blog post Is god good?
2 hours ago
Tom Sarbeck replied to jay H's discussion What the freakin hell is wrong with this country???
3 hours ago
Jason Blair replied to Daniel W's discussion Are same sex marriages more stable than so-called traditional marriages? in the group LGBTQI atheists, nontheists, and friends
3 hours ago

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service