Seattle Atheists

FULL MARKS TO THE FFRF!
I was thrilled about the sign and all the publicity. That’s why I sent a huge donation check to the FFRF Madison office. THEY ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING!!!

I get the impression the local atheist groups (Seattle/Tacoma) are some sort of coffee klatch. Get together social clan who like to drink lattes and prattle on about how superior we are…God free. GET REAL FOLKS!! If you’re not up to the job, re name your collective: THE TOUCHY-FEELY NOT SURE ABOUT THE AFTER WORLD CLUB.

And BTW: Re: Amanda’s post from the Tacoma group…you don’t own Washington State. Ever heard of free speech? That would be in the “US” constitution. That trumps the atheists group house rules book.

BRAVO THE FFRF!!! Real atheists, unlike the spineless jelly fish groups in the SEATAC neighborhood.

Milt.

Hey Milt.

Freedom of speech. Caps lock means you are yelling right? Does freethought mean that everyone must have the same thoughts? Is it ok to think differently than others? Isn’t that part of what being an Atheist is?

If this group is SO spineless how come you haven’t stepped up and taken the reigns? Obviously you have deep pockets that could finance an Anti Religion effort here in Washington State.

It sure sucks to have people like you around to give our group a bad name. Back when I went to punk rock shows, they’d get ruined by one skinhead showing up and making a mess. You, MiltM, are that lowlife bonehead, standing out in the crowd, BEGGING for attention by trying to kick and punch everything in your way.

So, go polish up your steeltoe boots and squish some jellyfish somewhere. Just don’t spill my coffee.

Milt,

While many people agree with the sentiment of the sign (including me), this was not the appropriate venue. This was a chance for inclusion and education and instead it makes atheists look no better than fundie xtians cramming their “truth” down everyone’s throats. There was absolutely no reason to be disrespectful, which is what this sign is.

How Seattle Atheists does “the job” is to be respectful while educating the public. We don’t seek to convert people, just to foster understanding, help preserve the first amendment, and defend the separation of church and state.

There is a time and a place to be confrontational. This was not it.

I think the FFRF plaque was refreshing. I’m sure many people viewed it as disrespectful but frankly, religion has been getting undeserved respect.

I’m very concerned, fellow Atheists. What’s up with the winter solstice potluck dinner at the unitarian church? How can any self-respecting Atheist celebrate a pagan (religious) holiday? How can any self-described Atheist attend an event (of any kind) at a church (of any kind)? Not to mention all of this worry about whether the plaque is offensive to people who don’t share our beliefs. I think we’re becoming too ritualized and conformist.

Putting up ANY kind of plaque that doesn’t echo the sentiments of the religionists who have, traditionally held a monopoly on this type of display, is inherrently “disrespectful.” Rest assured that even the most milquetoast variety of plaque would have been labeled as such by those self-promoting theists. At the very core of the rationale for their need to display anything is less out of any concern for “devotion” than it is as a reminder of their (not-so) secret handshake as well as the need for constant reinforcement and self-promoting proselytizing necessary to prop up the pseudo-legitimacy of their imaginary friends.

I am fully supportive of Milt’s remarks. Thanks also to Bruce1 and dennis. Kevin resorts to name-calling here, within the group (which serves only those who would seek to promote internal strife) and as Bruce1 points out, JenLees’ observation concerning any “disrespect” is a bit misplaced. Must protests against Nazi setiments also be “respectful” of their creed and symbols?

Those who openly promote – if not DEMAND – that members of our species must strive to over-replicate themselves so as to consume ever more of the Earth’s dwindling resources need to have their boats rocked more than a little. What they call “right-to-life” is actually compusory birth – and the resultant over-population is a valuable tool; rather than to simply limit populations, it is far more useful (to powerful interests) to generate lots of low-level (and expendible) competitors who are easily motivated to take up arms to fight against whomever they are told represents the devil of the day. And just how much of this should we “respect?”

Consider also their holy texts that dictate that they stone to death any non-(or mis-)believers in their midst. And just how “respectful” would you have us be of this sentiment?

If the point were simply not to engage in their game, then there would be no point in affiliating here with one another. I am generally not a joiner – especially when nothing is to be gained save for unproductive discussion and commiseration. However, in concert and as our numbers grow, this group becomes more empowered to effect real change – but not without stepping on some toes and breaking some eggs. Let’s not be afraid to grow a spine.

Uncle Rick

@MiltM: “And BTW: Re: Amanda’s post from the Tacoma group…you don’t own Washington State. Ever heard of free speech? That would be in the “US” constitution. That trumps the atheists group house rules book.”

Yeah, Milt. I’ve heard of free speech, and that’s me exercising my RIGHT to it. I don’t tell you what to think. And, how about commenting on the actual website, instead of hiding your comment here?

This is funny,

an analogly does not equal name calling.

Maybe this next year there will be some active participants in the Board Elections. As opposed to the ’spineless, coffee klatch, goretex wearing, social networking, snack eating, movie watching, blood donating, festival attending, outreaching, touchy feely, kitty petting, tree hugging, facebooking, glue sniffing’ types that seem to want to do something positive.

Although I support the Seattle Atheists (“SA”) and value my friendships with its members, I felt compelled to express my opinion that the recent press release was a self-defeating act.

The definitions of atheism (according to the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy as stated in wikipedia) are “Either the lack of belief in a god, or the belief that there is no god.” There is a subtle difference in the meanings of the two definitions. Their difference lies in the degree of certainty. Either an atheist lacks belief in a god or believes with certainty that there is no god.

Certainly, the SA is an organization of and for atheists. Assumedly, SA supports the separation of church and state (“SCS”). Certainly, SCS is a complimentary position for atheists. The Freedom From Religion Foundation (“FFRF”) expressed in the plaque what atheists of the certainty definition believe. Why wasn’t this expression of beliefs considered virtuous? Did SA decide to sacrifice what the certainty atheists believe for a desire to get along, political correctness, or political expediency? Did SA decide to take responsibility for theists’ feelings?

Regardless of the atheist definition you accept, in my opinion the following comments in the SA press release were self-defeating:
1. “We cannot endorse the language or sentiments expressed on this sign.”
2. “We feel it is divisive, hostile, and does not represent a good-faith attempt to promote the separation of church and state.”
3. “In fact, we feel it has done damage to the public perception of atheism.”

Item 1.

The plaque said there are no gods, devils, angels, and heaven or hell. That is precisely what atheists of the certainty definition believe. Can’t atheists of the lacking belief definition endorse this language?

The plaque said there is only a natural world. In my opinion, most atheists do not believe in anything supernatural, but some atheists might. However, that some atheists might believe in supernatural things does not seem a strong enough reason to me for SA not to endorse this language.

The plaque said that religion is but myth and superstition. Do I really need to comment on endorsing this language?

I believe that SA can endorse the plaque’s statement that religion hardens hearts and enslaves minds if the SA can overlook the divisive, hostile nature of that statement. See Item 2.

Item 2.

In my opinion, “hostile” is worthy of discussion but “divisive” is not. Anytime someone takes a position, it separates (i.e., divides) him/her from those who believe otherwise. (In like manner, saying a ball is red is a discriminating statement.)

Obviously, many people will consider the plaque’s statements hostile. So what? In my opinion, many people would consider hostile any expression of atheist belief. Should that prevent atheists from expressing their beliefs? No. Should that prevent atheists from expressing their beliefs in a capital rotunda next to a nativity scene? No, the capital rotunda is public property on which atheists have freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

Saying that the plaque’s statement was hostile reminds me of Rodney King’s question “… can we all get along?” Well, can we? Do evangelical christians want to get along with atheists? Want to respect atheists’ opinions? Want to accept that atheists have moral values? In my opinion, evangelical christians want to convert atheists, impede the spread of atheists’ beliefs, or harm atheists. Ask Elizabeth Dole. Ask the Smalkowski family from Oklahoma. Honestly, frequently who is being insensitive in ways that really count?

Item 3

In my opinion, the plaque’s statement did not damage the public perception of atheists. The plaque’s statement heightened society’s awareness that the FFRF and atheists in general are serious about the SCS. How? By the very name of the organization that put the plaque up – Freedom From Religion Foundation.

The press release stated that SA places a high value on the SCS. How high? When christians do not accept the SCS, when churches endorse political candidates, when political candidates promote their christianity for political gain, when christians in the military harass atheists, and when christians place religious messages on government property – how should atheists address these actions? Be silent?

Certainly, I understand that partially the SA point was that the plaque’s statement during the christmas season next to a nativity was damaging to the public perception of atheists. However, did the SA object to the scheduling of American Atheists (“AA”) annual conventions on easter weekends? Those conventions were located in cities that had churches with congregants fervently worshipping a son of god who they believe died for them. I don’t believe SA issued press releases saying that the scheduling of AA conventions was damaging to the public perception of atheists.

Providing community services promotes goodwill and is good to do. However, providing community service makes no statement at all regarding the SCS. The FFRF was willing to deal with the SCS issue head on. SA and other atheists uncomfortable with the FFRF’s actions could at least remain silent.

Thank you FFRF for courageously expressing atheist beliefs.

Gary B.
(Southeast of Lake Union)

I can’t express enough how encouraging it is to see atheists stand up and assert themselves. As soon as I heard about Seattle Atheists, I joined. Don’t worry about insulting Christians; since when do they show any respect to anyone other than themselves, and that is especially true toward atheists. I’m tired of being demonized because I don’t believe in fairy tales. How about you?

Personally I find the idea of having to see another fracking Nativity scene to be extremely offensive. As an Atheist of many years, I do actually appreciate the secular idea of Christmas, I enjoy giving gifts to my friends. However I also enjoy giving gifts to my friends, regardless of a holiday. I don’t need crappy religious mythologies, to tell me it’s okay to give gifts. Personally I like the idea of rubbing it in the faces of Christians and other religions, that it is NOT OKAY to force me to or others to have to acknowledge their myths.