Skip to main content

View Diary: The new Secular Party of America bids a fond adieu to the National Atheist Party (18 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That's like saying (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    It's like saying that my membership in a chess club is anti-scrabble.

    •  No, it's like saying your membership (0+ / 0-)

      in the NoScrabble club is anti scrabble.

      •  Believe it or not (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pierre9045, pixxer

        a great deal of contemporary atheism coexists with religion or is entirely independent of religion.

        •  Remember that my point is not whether the (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          title describes the group, it is whether the title might sound as though the group had an agenda that it does not have, and thereby scare off allies. It's not about the accuracy or inaccuracy of the name, it's about the usefulness of the two names, old and new, and my agreement that the new name is more useful than the old as a political party name, while still being accurate.

      •  You need to check your prefixes (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Atheist means without religion. It is not the same as being against religion, which would be anti-theist.

        Asexual means reproducing without sex. It is not the same as antisexuality, which means being against sex.

        Apathy means a lack of interest. It is not the same as antipathy, which means an extreme disinterest.

        Even your own example doesn't work. "No Scrabble" would mean "without Scrabble", not "Anti Scrabble," which would mean "against Scrabble".

        The point is, "Atheist" and "Anti-Theist" are not synonymous, which is the base of your arguments.

        •  No, actually atheist means without a god. (0+ / 0-)

          However, this is not relevant to the discussion. The discussion is about which title for an organization will be more effective. A political organization that has "without god" as its title implies that "without god" is that organization's agenda. Since that can so easily be misinterpreted as an agenda of removing god from other people, too, the old title of the organization is less politically effective than the new one. "Ascrabble" would be fine if you want to substitute it in my previous post.

          •  It is relevant (0+ / 0-)

            because people call themselves Atheist and you are asserting that just because of this, they should be treated as if they want to wipe out religion.

            The distinction you are making, that you are talking about political organizations, makes no difference.

            If you are going to assert that political organizations should not use the word Atheist in their titles because people will assume that they are trying to wipe out religion, then you may as well make that assumption about individuals who call themselves Atheist.

            It's not true of individuals, so why would it be true of political groups?

            If anything, since most political groups have explicit agendas, so you can clearly see whether or not their aim is to wipe out religion or not, while with individuals such agendas are rarely codified, it's a far more inaccurate assumption of political groups than it is of individuals.

            I get the point you are trying to make. That if a political group uses the word Atheist in its name then it is likely to receive criticism from outside forces. The point is that if we make this assumption about people that they will negatively rate a group simply because it uses the word Atheist, there is no reason to assume that they wouldn't also do the same thing to individuals who call themselves Atheist.

            So if you want to be consistent, if you're going to assert that political groups shouldn't use the word Atheist, then you should feel the same way for individuals.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site