Monday, March 3, 2014
So there's no atheist movement hu? (part 4)
When I speak of atheist movement the atheists on this board always confuse that with "being an atheist" then assert "being an atheist is not a movement." Being a Christian is not a chruch,but there is a church.
Being an atheist is not being part of a movement but there is an atheist movement. The leaders of that movement call it that:
Columbia faith and values
the title "stop punching down: How atheism is progressing" he's at a conference of the center for inquiry which I've demonstrated in AW is a propaganda tool.
why is it progressing if it's not a movement? he says:
"When I first started to get involved in the movement a few years ago, such discussion were largely on the fringe and almost completely derided or ignored. - See more at: http://columbiafavs.com/2013/08/15/how-atheism-is-progressing/#sthash.pEtxbAf4.dpuf"
"The conference closed with a rousing speech from former director of outreach, Lauren Becker, who began by telling us that “it’s not just about being an atheist anymore … we are moving on to more important things.” - See more at: http://columbiafavs.com/2013/08/15/how-atheism-is-progressing/#sthash.pEtxbAf4.dpuf"
so it's not about being an atheist anymore, what's it about? "Other things?" what things? how is that not a movement?
Matthew C. Nesbit
"At the NY Times today, beliefs correspondent Mark Oppenheimer reports on last week’s Council for Secular Humanism conference in Los Angeles. His article discusses the infighting within the movement. As I wrote last week, at issue is how secular humanists and atheists should participate as citizens in society."
the ousted founder of the Council for Secular Humanism and its umbrella organization The Center for Inquiry
"Kurtz has warned that the movement has turned in a dangerous direction away from a vision of productive citizenship towards becoming a movement that rests entirely on attention grabbing ridicule and attacks.
(that one also admits they are about ridicule)
section in the article called "the new face of a movement
"Most notably, Myers calls NIH chief and genome-mapper Francis Collins “a clown. “ As the biology teacher explains of the religious Collins: ““When it comes to the way he’s thinking about science, everything I’ve read that he’s written has been complete garbage.”
Retired University of Colorado physics instructor Victor Stenger, another confrontationalist on the panel, is described as calling accommodationists cowards. “It’s time for secularists to stop sucking up to Christians and other religious people," he told the NY Times.
Oppenheimer ends the article by describing Myers as a proud, out-of-the-closet atheist who is providing inspiration to non-believers: “We’re here, he’s saying. And we don’t believe. And we have science and reason on our side. Get used to it.”
The Council for Secular Humanism—and its parent organization the Center for Inquiry--- erred considerably in giving Myers a forum. His appearance and remarks have gained news attention, but at what price?
This is not about censoring Myers, but about making wise choices relative to the public image of the organization and the future of the movement. There will always be a need for iconoclasts and pundits such as Myers who exceed the boundaries of civil discourse and who grab attention by saying foolish and embarrassing things. But that doesn’t mean that major organizations should affiliate with him by making his remarks the news that comes to define their annual meetings."
you know what that sounds like to me? It's sounds like a movement! They ahve factions they are arguing about the goals they they have organizations, they have radicals they have more reasonable types, don't you think they have some ideology? that's what movements do.
Point of inquiry
" Recently at Pomona College in California, three atheists—one of them a Point of Inquiry host—got together to debate the future of the movement.
And some sparks flew.
Topics raised included the rise of the so-called "nones" (those professing "no religion" in surveys), the lack of representation for atheists in the U.S. Congress, and the debate between moderate or "live-and-let-live" atheism as opposed to a louder and more aggressive version."
what are they doing? they are getting together, they are organizing they are discussing the goals they want to work on as a group for the future, that's a movement.
Blog of U of Missouri sketpics. kind of a "having a wondeful time wish you were here."
for a LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE for atheism. why would you have a leadership conference if you dont' have a movement.
"It’s officially the first full day of the CFI Student Leadership Conference 2012, although most people got in last night for the welcome and first few talks. Ellen Lundgren and I actually came in from Columbus Wednesday night—we are interning for the summer for the Secular Student Alliance there—and stayed with Tony Lakey, *****’s president and CFI summer intern, and Stef McGraw from UNIFI, the other CFI summer intern."
things going on.
"In Defense of Anger"
"A few weeks ago, I posted a guest blog written by Karla McLaren on how incorporating more dialectics will benefit the atheist movement, which at present is largely guided, shaped and moderated by polemical rhetoric. Her post stirred up a lot of disagreement here and at other blogs. Similarly, the next guest blog I posted, a reflection by Christopher Michael Luna, sparked additional disagreements and accusations that McLaren, Luna, I (and many who affiliate with us) don’t have the best interests of the atheist movement in mind."
(1) admits it's a movement
(2) guided by rhetoric
(3) If it's guided then there's leadership and paln
"This isn’t the first time that posts on NonProphet Status have inflamed such controversy, and I admire that McLaren and Luna initially attempted to engage every commenter — something I rarely have time for, though I long to do — but eventually the dialogue broke down."
why would they need non profit status if it's not a movement? You only get non profit status for organizing not for having the lack of a belief.
Of course this meant nothing to the atheists on carm. the very same one's who previously said "there's no movement" now say "so what if there's a movement?" Next, they will probably say there is no movement.
what if there is a movement? Nothing, it's not a problem. My issue is why are they unwilling to admit it? Notice it's a divided movement.
The Atheist movement and