I am an Atheist, and I think the NAP is a very confusing idea. One point I'd touch upon. The reason there is mass consensus on political talking points is down the NAP having an extremely Liberal manifesto. Most Atheists are Liberal which explains why the NAP members agree on everything. The people running NAP should have considered running as a Democrat. Sorry for stating the obvious.
I couldn't watch. The constant denial by this guy that the NAP was a "neutral" that it simply "representing" atheists is silly. If this is about theocracy, then don't worry about political stuff. If this is about politics, then go join the democratic party. They're 100% the same.
Reasoning and sceptical thinking can definitely be applied to politics as well, as we are not blinding by obstructive superstition. The idea of private healthcare and gun ownership seems somewhat irrational to me as well, but even so, compromise can be achieved.
@TheThinkingAtheist You seem to be concerned about the possibility of consensus. Why can't the superior reasoning that Atheists generally possess, be applied to politics as well. Issues such as abortion and gay rights are massive topics, and to achieve agreement would be big. There are parties such as the green party also focussing on one area so why not an Atheist party too?
"The danger we face does not come from religion. It comes from a growing intellectual bankruptcy that is one of the symptoms of a dying culture.". Chris Hedges, "I Don't Believe in Atheists"
We atheist should be proud and have every right to speak our truth as we allow others to make theirs. Atheists unite and spread the word of peace, love and truth through scientific evidence and reason. Who's with me?
@TheDethBringer666 Some of us in the atheist camp care more about a nuclear North Korea than we do about global warming. We distrust another bloated government program which promises to cure our ills and alleviate our pain. We believe in hard work and a free market. We don't believe that success should be penalized. We support alternative energy without claiming that fossil fuels are evil. We also support science, stem cell research, choice and gay rights. Not denial of any kind, my friend
@TheThinkingAtheist Some distrust the society or system in which we were born into and exist. Some others may believe that one day they can corrupt corruption and make their system serve rather than leech. Others believe that success is just a word for accumulating monetary wealth, useless bits of paper and metal given value by man with no practical value. And a few others know that one day man will die and the earth will heal, so they do not fret over a few plastic bags or the burning of gas.
@TheThinkingAtheist But there are likely even a smaller few who think they are just men on a rock with a computer in their head. And these men know what they think, they know that they are not special, they think they are no more than a virus on their home planet.
But don't worry, the immune system will get us one day, and until then I'll sit back and play some video games or watch a video. Hell, maybe I'll watch one of yours to to finish filling my intelligence quota of the day.
@TheThinkingAtheist Well, you managed to shake off your theism, now all that's left is for you to study sociology for awhile to cure the rest of the indoctrination that typically goes hand-in-hand with religion.
Then I can only say that they shoudl do some research and set their priorities straight.Millitary threath posed by North Korea is less then neglible due to inferior
quality of their obsolete hardware.Be it their airforce,tank fleet or navy none can pose any kind of significant threath towards ROK an US forces.As for their
Nuclear capabilyty it is largely counterd by various interception systems raging
from shipborne SM-3 to ground based GDI and MIM-104.
@zevon1964 Because the majority of Atheists are liberal in nature. That is a fact. What do you think Humanists are? Conservatives? Fascists? You must not go much beyond theology when it comes to contemplating the world in which you exist if you hadn't learned that already.
@TheDethBringer666 Sorry, you have no empirical evidence to back up that statement. Humanist does not equate to progressive. There are a tremendous number of Libertarian humanists. Objectivists are atheists. Many Goldwater conservatives are atheists. Perhaps you exist in that intersection of the Venn diagrams for atheists and progressives and that is skewing your perception. Progressive atheists have merely supplanted the religion of the state for the gods of theism.
The main purpose that I would see behind having a group or organization that consisted of atheists would be primarily to offer support to those who have left a religion--not necessarily like a support group, but just a way of knowing that there are other atheists/like minded people out there who disagree with what the vast majority of religious people propogate (that largest religions are theistic).
I am afraid I would not find very much for me in this party, but good luck to them.
I am rather libertarian myself. I think most of my stances are in line with Seth. If we were friends, we would most likely bore each other to no end, lol.
Until we get rid of our first-past-the-post system, we should only have one united big tent third party with the single purpose of switching over to a voting system that doesn't split the vote. Third parties can't flourish under first-past-the-post. Once that is accomplished the third parties can splinter off.
atheism is just as ridiculous as any stupid religion out there. To think you have the absolute answer to our origin is ridiculous and mathematically absurd in itself. You can't hide behind the cloak of Science either - some of the worlds greatest scientists ever (Pascal, Newton, Keplar) believed in God. Based on logic and rational alone agnosticism is the only reasonable system. Closed minded belief and non-belief are one in the same and best left for the pathologically stupid and unimaginative
@Rebdomine23 I'm afraid I don't know what you mean when you say "god." You mean that non-empirical, non-knowledge based, non-premise, from which no standards of proof can be established, and therefore no evidence has ever been found? Theism cannot even define itself, nor even knows what it is trying to prove or how. And I need not hide behind the cloak of past geniuses paying lipservice to religion.
I'm in I love the idea and name of the atheists party. And I think that individuals having an atheistic world view would share similar values I was very impressed with the consensus in the party.
Atheism is a base determiner of rationality. A moderate, reasonable atheist is someone I'd vote for over any religious candidate, period.
It's not a very cohesive group, admittedly... atheist views on everything but religion are... all over the place. However, I think a middle of the road atheist candidate could really appeal to a lot of people.
@Ryakki - agree. i find this podcast kind of uncomfortable in it's insinuation that smart, reasonable people can't come to a consensus. or can't accept compromise within a group. :T
@Ryakki Unfortunately, there are non-believers (many of them) whose rejection of gods doesn't translate into maturity, education, leadership or vision. And while I've met a great, great many wonderful, thoughtful atheists, I've also seen an alarming number of whiny children, immature malcontents and raging lunatics.
Don't let atheism be your only qualification as you accept friends, promote causes and embrace candidates. Every camp has its bad seeds.
People who don't believe in magic come in all shapes and sizes and attitudes and levels of education and mental well being... but if an atheist is moderate, and reasonable (qualifiers I added in the first post), and his opponent is a theist... well, his opponent is irrational and out of touch with reality, and I'm going to vote for the atheist :P
The qualifiers are they key to the whole thing working. If he's not a reasonable moderate, his atheism means nothing.
@Ryakki i don't think seth's position is viable-the fact is, we're pretty close on most things with each other, it's a myth that atheists can't be cohesive. if you respect the evidence, if you're reasonable--which most atheists are, we end up very close to each other on the issues.
Religion causes war. In the Middle East, Christains, Jewish, Islamic, are all at war fighting over who has the better imaginary friend (LOL). So if the world was Athiest, war would drop SIGNIFICANTLY.
Only a shithead who knows nothing about Karl Marx would lump a dedicated socialist and union organizer like Marx, who created the fucking economic philosophy, in with their arch-enemies: the racist anti-semitic NATIONAL socialists like Hitler.
Hypocritically, these same dumb fuckheads don't speak out against democracy even though the word democratic is used in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea).
@mphello "the fucking economic philosophy" only someone who doesn't understand the fundamentals of economics could describe it as a philosophy invented by a guy...
It'd be like saying Darwin created the philosophy of evolution.
Marx didn't invent anything, he consolidated much older ideas in a rhetorically effective way.
I speak out against Democracy all the time, but Communism and Socialism are both economically, morally, and functionally disastrous. See F.A. Hayek to learn more.
@mphello i get the impression that you are more interested in the dogmatic adherence to a demonstrably invalid political theory, than to actually solving problems.
Have read Hayek? Have you even heard of him? Or like so many others do you go out of your way to avoid any serious critic of you deeply held beliefs.
Any admirer of the Soviet Union rates right along side creationists in their absence of intellectual integrity.
@noadmiration I'm no fan of the SU. They were evil, just slightly less evil than Nazi Germany, and hence necessary to defeat them.
Your fanatical anti-Marxism shows that you are a cultist. Marxism is about fighting banksters and corporate CEOs on behalf of the workers, NOT about extreme nationalism. Kim Jong Il, Stalin were all extreme nationalists.
@mphello Marx was a man who didn't live his principles even at the slightest level. His economic theories are based on fallacious concepts and his emphasis on class consciousnesses makes him just as manipulative as any religious leader. He didn't understand where the means of production actually come from and his irrationality led directly to the death of millions from starvation and war.
Class warfare is re-branded nationalism, tribalism, racism... It's all the same "us vs. them" crap.
Then how come 99 % of the US is in the hands of less than 1 %?
Clearly some greedy parasites got rich firstly because of selling shady financial products. When the shit finally hit the fan after being exposed, they made even more money because of the bailout and vulture-capitalism
And Bush the maggot gave the richest even more taxbreaks? Guess they got an even bigger home then, eh?
Classwar my ass, it's the uberrich trying to shift the burden of guilt
@sonykroket You need to go look up the term "monomania"... it might be helpful for you in your future endeavors.
You are the 99% of people who don't study economics, have never run a company or created a job, and yet feel qualified to make demands regarding complex issues you don't understand.
First you study the problem and understand it's context, then you think critically about what you've learned, and then you can propose a solutions to the problem.
I agree that this is a ridiculous 'party' (there is certainly NOT a general political consensus among atheists) and should instead be a simple 'special interest group' applying pressure only on subjects that are based on religion. The main problem with creating 'SIGs' like this is that the leadership starts looking for reasons to bitch and whine in order to justify the existence of the group which creates bad publicity, a backlash and the opposite of what we're trying to accomplish.
Atheists coming together would help spread science, reason, critical thinking, and help shed the chains of ignorance that have plagued humanity for thousands of years.
There are millions of children being taught that a mythical superman named Jesus will come flying through the clouds like a superhero and bring an end to human history. This is immoral, and damages the psyche of our youth.
Religion needs to be pushed to the fringes of society. Take a stand for our youth and our civilization.
The issue I take with this idea is that atheism doesn't necessarily need to be represented at all. Ultimately it is religion that needs to no longer be represented. This way the whole problem is averted entirely.
This seems to take a step in the opposite direction from the likes of Christopher Hitchens who takes the tack of taunting religion, but not the people which seems to be way more effective in my eyes than to be herding a group under a ridiculous premise.
= The issue I take with this idea is that atheism doesn't necessarily need to be represented at all. Ultimately it is religion that needs to no longer be represented. This way the whole problem is averted entirely.=
Yeah, that political party is National Socialism. Hitler just took Darwins theory and applied it to politics, survival of the fittest. Isn't coincidental thet Karl Marx and Lenin came about not long after Darwin?
@RebelSoldat1 Hitler did not take Darwins theory and apply it to politics, he supported eugenics through the means of genocide which is not the same thing at all.
I encourage you to look up both the definitions of evolution and eugenics on the online dictionary to understand the difference. If this does not make it clear to you then let me know
@roadkill1001 Actually, yes. Hitler belived that, like athiests, believed man was just another animal, except man is the dominate animal. In order to make a better man, he must euthanize the elderly, retarded, crippled, Jews, gays; anyone who was useless and can't contribute to society. We see this in nature, it is cruel but efficient. If you are out in the wild and you are weak, you are as good as dead. Hitler merely applied principle to government. Cont>
@RebelSoldat1 And your comment on how "religion should not be represented by government" simply can't work. An athiest society cannot exist on it's own, because of the teaching of "This is your only life - live it to the fullest." As the responisbilty of raising children is not the most enjoyable thing in the world, athiests will not bear children in favor of entertainment, work, etc. Look it up yourself, athiest reproduction rates are next to nothing. Cont>
@RebelSoldat1 Cont> Therefore, that makes athiesm a parasitic to a religious society. So, without religion, mankind will not reproduce in the numbers necessary to forfeit extinction. Keep in mind that for a society to maintain the equivalent population size, each individual will have to have one child, thus two children per couple. It is a man's belief's that dictates his form of self-government.
@RebelSoldat1 Firstly, atheist only means a non-belief in god, they can still deny evolution.
As I have said, Hitler used the idea of Eugenics and was also religiously motivated. Being a catholic he felt he had divine right, quite the opposite to believing we came from man (as he actually rejected that idea)
The irony is even if he did use darwins theory in politics, the only thing it shows is hitler was an asshole, not that evolution doesn't exist.
RebelSoldat1 just proved what a stupid dumbfuck anti-atheist bigot he is, who knows nothing about history. Torturing him by the methods used by the Spanish Inquisition would be FUN for him, because he clearly makes NO mention of THEM anywhere in his comments.
If the only thing joining people together is the atheist perspective, then they would be no better than the religious people who will vote for someone just because they are of the same religion. I don't think an Atheist party is a good idea. We should work to influence the national parties. Remind them that many hard working proud Americans do not believe in any sort of god and should not be marginalized. Besides, atheism is not a political perspective or an economic perspective. Just, nonbelief
Possibly, would mean that thy all have reason and common sense. However, there is a diverse range of political opinions engendered by atheists, and I think it would be hard to reconcile all the other views other than religion.
I'm an atheist who's not a center left progressive by any stretch of the imagination. In fact I put myself squarely on the right so I could never join this party.
I wouldn't join that. I'd join a national Reason Party however. I'm an Atheist because my reasoning lead me to it. I'd rather follow my reason into a party of reason instead of into a party of broad circumstantial likenesses. Many people claim to be Atheists for many reasons. Only about half or less are truly reasonable and could form a coherent party. Not saying that a party of reason couldn't be corrupted of course there's always a chance of that.
I told a girl that I was an atheist, and she thought I worshiped Satan. Mind you, she is a Christian. I tried to tell her that's what I don't believe in, and as matter of fact I don't have a belief. Nothing could bring her to logic. Really, it's astonishing how incoherent these people are and how hard it is to rationalize with them.
Another more libertarian atheist here and find much of the "progressive" agenda absolutely repellent. In addition, they claim they want to base all platforms off "evidence", yet evidence lends itself to the exact opposite positions they espouse. Political party =/= spiritual belief. It's just as bad as any theocratic ideology.
The thing that bothers me the most is, "you can join if you agree with platform." What?! how is your platform going to change if the only people that can join are the ones that already agree with it? Maybe I would join if it was the National Skeptics Party and rallied behind skepticism and came to a platform through debate and consensus. However, a group that encourages change of their platform yet makes it a requirement that you already agree with them seems contradictory.
@AtheistKharm They didnt say join if you agree with the platform, its join if you agree with, I forget what they call it, but basically basic rules of the party.
The platform is able to change yearly, so just joining because you believe is not a good idea.
A candidate may not agree with all platform positions. I think you just misunderstood what they were saying.
I guarantee he didnt say only people agreeing with the current platform are welcome.
This is a bad idea for the same reason that a "National Non-stampcollector Party" would be a shitty idea. I don't want some committee of atheists attempting to represent the POLITICAL views of every other atheist in America. We are a group defined only by the LACK OF a specific belief. To conflate a political stance with absence of belief is horribly awkward and problematic.
//I don't want some committee of atheists attempting to represent the POLITICAL views of every other atheist in America.//
they don't, the majority does. we are also a group joined together in reason, and that is something that has been missing in politics for a long, long time. how much do you know about the NAP? what is "horribly awkward and problematic" about several 1000 freethinkers agreeing on specific topics and debating others with logic?
@flashoftruth I'll say it again: To conflate a group's political stance with their absence of a specific belief is horribly awkward and problematic. Maybe this will clarify my concern: imagine how this will look to those outside the movement. When you see "The National Atheist Party" and have people behind it with a full-fledged political platform, by all appearances one could easily get the impression that this group is presuming to somehow work for the specific interests of ALL ATHEISTS.
Now, I'm hoping you won't just respond with something "on message" and repeat that your policies are majority decided--that is entirely beside the point. If you don't want to address my concerns, I can't make you.
@iamheasyouaremeandwe Atheists are an incredibly diverse demographic defined only by the LACK OF A SPECIFIC BELIEF. This doesn't mean that there aren't trends and patterns within this demographic, but if you want to create a political party from that, then why completely sidestep this in the name? Call yourselves the "reason" party or secular humanist party or something that actually speaks to what you DO believe.
one might hope in this day and age that someone who considers themselves both atheist and/or a "freethinker" might not "presume" anything without first investigating, researching, and thereby coming to an intelligent conclusion of the facts. we work for the specific interests of as many PEOPLE as possible, not just atheists. anyone who agrees with our platform may join. might help to read it first before you "get an impression" of any merit.
tcsam9202: "If the only thing joining people together is the atheist perspective, then they would be no better than the religious people who will vote for someone just because they are of the same religion. I don't think an Atheist party is a good idea. We should work to influence the national parties. Remind them that many hard working proud Americans do not believe in any sort of god and should not be marginalized. Besides, atheism is not a political perspective or an economic perspective."
@iamheasyouaremeandwe The fact that you have a platform (whether I agree with it or not) is not the point. The fact that as many people as possible have bearing on it is not the point. You have once again failed to address my points. Every NAP rep I've conversed with has been entirely unable to respond to these simple arguments that are inevitably going to be thrown your way. Oh well.
Is it just me, or is the iTunes version of this podcast actually an older episode (closet atheists) with the atheist party title? I've tried to listen on YT several times but am never in one place long enough. Really need the podcast for my mobile device. Guess I'll delete and download again to see if it's fixed.
I would love to see more (are there any?) political parties based on promoting and funding science and the development of new technology, to the benefit of all of society. That's economical and sociological enough to cover all the issues. And in a way it would be anti-theistic, if that's what you want in a party.
BTW me ole uninformed rightwingspammer. Hitler hijacked the term socialism to get control over Germany, after that there was litte socialism left. It was a dictatorship run by a few religious individuals.
Nice try, too bad we all heard it 3534643 times before
The basic difference b/t 'atheists' and 'believers', is obviously a lack of faith in a higher power (God) and that he is all good, beautiful and loving. The bible is an outdated relic full of half-truths that should be replaced with The Urantia Book, a 20th century revelatory document with over 2,000 pages of philosophy, theosophy, cosmology, and historic evolution of our planet and species. Read this then get back to me.
OK, NAP states that they are violently opposed to most basic human rights positions and would, given the ability, impose their preferred form of fascism. Let them spew their poison at each other and leave them out of mainstream politics like simlar groups.
It's hard to separate atheism from communism and socialism, and I say this as an atheist capitalist. The reason is that power defends power, and if it isn't through big government that power manipulates you it is through our insecurities and the crutches they lead people to (drugs, religion, and other outright escapism). Education needs to change, it needs to stop serving century's-old power and behave more like an open market for ideas and social reform.
@tugger communism as first preposed has to yet be truley practiced,a supporter of capatilism is a force for greed in my book, its simply not humanitarian and that should be foundational in all party politics. look at the scandinavians they seem to have a better grasp of living a rational civilised society that works quite well, until their recent flood of muslims.
A national political Atheist Party so long as it segregated from COMMUNISM, SOCIALISM, FASCISM, DEMOCRACY would be the Saviour of Humanity...but it must be loyal to OPEN QUESTIONS, not Dogma! ;-)
Guess who isn't atheist anymore? Christopher Hitchens! Know why? Because in the afterlife it becomes obvious very quickly that there IS a creator whom we commonly refer to as 'God'. What cracks me up about 'atheists' is that their pretentiousness is off the charts and they are completely oblivious to it. Lemme ask you 'atheists' something: Ever 'love' anything? Wife? Child? Dog? Cat? Then you are not only proving the existence of God but you are embodying his divine purpose. Silly bastards......
@thezentrixter Two things: 1. Look up Pascal's Wager (what you're arguing). It's a shambles. 2.You have conceeded by using a semantic substitute for 'God'. We can explain what you call 'love', but it isn't the same thing as I see it. See to you, your god is a loving god. Because you have not read the bible. This is why your concept of 'love' is absurd, and I can't see that as a valid comparison. At any rate, the god of love is Aphrodite, your god is the god of jealousy and insecurity. ;)
I don't really ever hear Democrats discussing religion a lot. Most of them are against prayer in school and things like that, and don't seem to pander to the fundamentalist Christians much.
@mordinvan "We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ." 2 Corinthians 10:5.
Christians cannot be freethinkers, since all their thoughts and imaginings must be brought into captivity in obedience to Christ.
Having learned that like most atheists, and most importantly, like me, they're liberals/progressives, I'm all in favor. As long as they don't become infested with right-wingers, I'll support their grassroots efforts.
I would love to be a member of such a party. To be a member of a group who has chosen to view the worl in natural rather than supernatural ways would be nice. I understand that disagreements can still occur but some how I feel that such a group would not allow its self to get bogged down in a lot of false issues.
As for the NAP, they seem to be an atheistic version of the Democratic party. Whether or not they should keep the name.. I really don't care if they call themselves that. But, as for them getting my vote, that wouldn't happen. I'm a libertarian, and (obviously), I disagree with their financial stance and their stance on gun control.
Perhaps what is needed in The National Atheist Party would be an emphasis on empirically responsible policy. Consensus will develop around empirically responsible approaches, and those approaches that are in doubt, do the empirical research necessary to settle the problem and acheive a consensus.
Much more difficult than it sounds, but this is what happens in science where consensus means everything.
most atheists are in the new england area.....most new englanders are liberal progressives with a somewhat canadian/european mindset. most atheists are liberal progressives. this makes sense. what doesn't make sense is a national atheist party. i can't comprehend this. there are no fundamentals of atheism therefore there are no values that you can rely on. changing the name to the progressive party would make it more accurate. plus we haven't had one since theodore roosevelt so it's about time.
@slytherinspy1960 ok so i've got to the point where you address this issue and i can understand where you are coming from. not only that but upon further thinking i think there should definitely be a republican atheist party because we need something to balance out the crazy religious right. also i believe someone who is socially liberal and fiscally conservative is more libertarian than republican (unless you are a warhawk).
@MrImmobile Jesus has to shave his anus.Mexican food and hot sauce gives ya the squirts.If you got crap stuck in your ass hair it takes away from your gardening performance.Gotta make that paper if he wants to ever get that el camino.
@AtheistFMD518 ya he loves his spicy food. You would think jesus wouldnt get the shits. If we know anything it is that jesus loves pain/torture and ass burn after some firey shit shooting out ye A hole can give ya some torment. Jesus's ass burns so yours doesnt have to;) wouldnt that be nice.
I don't think Seth realizes that the vast majority of atheists are left-wing progressives. The reason this happens to be the case is that facts, history, evidence support the progressive positions while showing the right-wing positions on taxation, foreign policy, gun control etc., have failed, at least for the majority of the population, re: the Bush Administration. They may work just fine for the top 1%, but this party seeks to represent a lot more of the citizenry than that.
I don't know why anyone would be surprised an atheist party would be mostly left of center progressives. Just compare the demographics between the two. Of course we don't live in a cookie cutter black and white world, but statistically speaking they tend to fall in the same category.
Just another group looking to be a centralized authority as they split the term people and government as if it is a separate thing. When I hear the hyperbole of "gov in your business" I then start to hear privatization and deregulation which leads to horrible hospitals and disgusting prisons systems which we have to deal with now. And no right to health care? Nationalism is no good no matter how you try to polish it and we know other systems we could model ourselves on. Egos need to be dissolved
i tried downloading the podcast but it was just the help iam a closet atheist episode with the national atheist party title and description what gives?
You guys over in America do seem to have a bit of a problem of 2 practically right wing parties. Us Brits had the same problem with the conservatives and the liberals 100 years ago. But then trade unions funded a new party, it got seats and it's now the left-centre part of Britain: labour. You guys seem to need a labour, maybe the NAP could be that party?... Just my European opinion...
@rangergxi ...never get any seats of significant numbers, in our lifetimes so far. A fast paced stroll through party history shows we (USA) had times of MANY parties in power, and their was chaos. I believe a true economic equilibrium would be more than two parties, but game theory kind of gets you to two big and maybe one weak third that becomes very powerful in times of parity between the two big. e.g. The Blue Dog Democrat's of 2008-2010; took away the majority power of the Dem's.
If we change one thing in this country it would be that we don't make laws on on beliefs instead of evidence. Such as, "I think", this is bad so lets make a law. It's your fucking job to teach your kids the truth about bad people and fucked up shit in life.
People want to nerf the world, for the children. GO fuck yourself !
@krapptacular It seems you're being cathartic, but nerfing the world is a stretch. Every society that undergoes either a big growth in population, resources or suffers invasion sees the horrible devastation that a caveat emptor lawless society brings. I don't think the USA is all that nerfed-up when Enron happened and then instead of nerfing it we let worse happen. I'll bet Gabby Giffords doesn't think we are too nerfed up.
If it gets too lawless then quite people bust caps.
How do atheist's express, "Devil's Advocate"? Seems like our host is doing that here.
If a person had to agree with every plank on a parties platform their would be hundreds of thousands of political parties. You decide to align with a party because their platform represents your choices for a better world closer than all the rest of the available parties do. I think I may have to consider switching from Democrat to the Nat. Atheist party. hope I hear where the platform details are.
The idea of a national atheist party is a silly one. You can have your own party, you can raise funds and run in elections, but don't call yourself an atheist party. While true that the spokespeople here said they do not stand for all atheists, why name yourself that?
The issue here is that if this party ever catches on in the political system (it won't, just because of the name) then people will be stereotyped to it's policies.
First I'd like "Atheist church" on Sundays. I need a social life that's as easy as the social life that Christian churches have. Secondly, political parties based on having more or less religion is a terrible idea.
Those who think critically are generally able to look at a situation and talk about the actual problem rather than around the problem. Talking about what really matters rather than irrelevant topics. Of course an atheist party would work better than a rhetoric only party like republican or democrats.
An Atheist Party is a bad idea, but more than that it's a pointless idea. No third party is viable right now, and especially not with the word "Atheist" in it.
@CosmicApe2 i can see where your coming from, though i do support this idea,as im sure a secular party or a humanist party will come out of this. so getting in their faces with this party name will eventually open the door for further free thinking parties. in time the atheist party will no longer be perceived as a satanist party in the eyes of the religious. good day to yi,.
@AdUtrumquePeratus76 I've never understood the fascination with banning nouns. If a person is smart enough to work out that a criminal will ignore laws against murder, why do they think another law will somehow solve the problem.
It's irrational.
Of course the only people who obey gun laws are the law abiding. Criminals by definition don't obey the law...
This is pretty simple logic, I don't get why people who are so boastful of their rationality understand it.
Before I even start listening to this podcast: I agree with adobePC. Altho it is an idea to move toward a more (or back to) secular political system and that would probably be something most atheists agree with, but other then that, there is nothing.
Personally I have both social and liberal ideas, because I don't think it's possible to be strictly one or the other in a society that's so damn diverse.
29:00 FFRF!
Snakekilla12 1 week ago in playlist watch later2
18:15 "How can you have morals?" I would respond how could you have a brain?
Snakekilla12 1 week ago in playlist watch later2
I am an Atheist, and I think the NAP is a very confusing idea. One point I'd touch upon. The reason there is mass consensus on political talking points is down the NAP having an extremely Liberal manifesto. Most Atheists are Liberal which explains why the NAP members agree on everything. The people running NAP should have considered running as a Democrat. Sorry for stating the obvious.
superrrnova1986 1 week ago
Comment removed
superrrnova1986 1 week ago
Christians often ask "How can you have morals? You're an Atheist" So you can't figure out that murder is bad by yourself?
Heklep 3 weeks ago
They don't speak for this atheist.
zevon1964 3 weeks ago
This "Atheist Party" is just the Democrat Party. No Libertarian would get within 50 meters of them.
zevon1964 3 weeks ago
I couldn't watch. The constant denial by this guy that the NAP was a "neutral" that it simply "representing" atheists is silly. If this is about theocracy, then don't worry about political stuff. If this is about politics, then go join the democratic party. They're 100% the same.
KidInTheSweater 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@KidInTheSweater I shut it off at 12 minutes.
zevon1964 3 weeks ago
Reasoning and sceptical thinking can definitely be applied to politics as well, as we are not blinding by obstructive superstition. The idea of private healthcare and gun ownership seems somewhat irrational to me as well, but even so, compromise can be achieved.
RefinedJBaby 1 month ago
@TheThinkingAtheist You seem to be concerned about the possibility of consensus. Why can't the superior reasoning that Atheists generally possess, be applied to politics as well. Issues such as abortion and gay rights are massive topics, and to achieve agreement would be big. There are parties such as the green party also focussing on one area so why not an Atheist party too?
RefinedJBaby 1 month ago
"The danger we face does not come from religion. It comes from a growing intellectual bankruptcy that is one of the symptoms of a dying culture.". Chris Hedges, "I Don't Believe in Atheists"
tamething1 1 month ago
We atheist should be proud and have every right to speak our truth as we allow others to make theirs. Atheists unite and spread the word of peace, love and truth through scientific evidence and reason. Who's with me?
whitefire1997 1 month ago
It's hilarious listening to TTA trying to say that Atheists aren't mostly progressive in nature. It sounds like he's in denial xD
TheDethBringer666 1 month ago 6
@TheDethBringer666 Some of us in the atheist camp care more about a nuclear North Korea than we do about global warming. We distrust another bloated government program which promises to cure our ills and alleviate our pain. We believe in hard work and a free market. We don't believe that success should be penalized. We support alternative energy without claiming that fossil fuels are evil. We also support science, stem cell research, choice and gay rights. Not denial of any kind, my friend
TheThinkingAtheist 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos 4
@TheThinkingAtheist Some distrust the society or system in which we were born into and exist. Some others may believe that one day they can corrupt corruption and make their system serve rather than leech. Others believe that success is just a word for accumulating monetary wealth, useless bits of paper and metal given value by man with no practical value. And a few others know that one day man will die and the earth will heal, so they do not fret over a few plastic bags or the burning of gas.
TheDethBringer666 1 month ago
@TheThinkingAtheist But there are likely even a smaller few who think they are just men on a rock with a computer in their head. And these men know what they think, they know that they are not special, they think they are no more than a virus on their home planet.
But don't worry, the immune system will get us one day, and until then I'll sit back and play some video games or watch a video. Hell, maybe I'll watch one of yours to to finish filling my intelligence quota of the day.
TheDethBringer666 1 month ago
@TheThinkingAtheist Well, you managed to shake off your theism, now all that's left is for you to study sociology for awhile to cure the rest of the indoctrination that typically goes hand-in-hand with religion.
Timorio 1 month ago
@TheThinkingAtheist
53:16-53:20
I was just thinking that!
XD
SinnFein4ever 4 weeks ago
@TheThinkingAtheist
Then I can only say that they shoudl do some research and set their priorities straight.Millitary threath posed by North Korea is less then neglible due to inferior
quality of their obsolete hardware.Be it their airforce,tank fleet or navy none can pose any kind of significant threath towards ROK an US forces.As for their
Nuclear capabilyty it is largely counterd by various interception systems raging
from shipborne SM-3 to ground based GDI and MIM-104.
Kharmazov 4 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@TheThinkingAtheist Atheist is not a synonym for progressive. But, I fear that, as the left so often does, it is trying to dominate the discussion.
zevon1964 3 weeks ago
@TheDethBringer666 Atheists are not all progressive in nature. Why do you think that?
zevon1964 3 weeks ago
@zevon1964 Because the majority of Atheists are liberal in nature. That is a fact. What do you think Humanists are? Conservatives? Fascists? You must not go much beyond theology when it comes to contemplating the world in which you exist if you hadn't learned that already.
TheDethBringer666 3 weeks ago
@TheDethBringer666 Sorry, you have no empirical evidence to back up that statement. Humanist does not equate to progressive. There are a tremendous number of Libertarian humanists. Objectivists are atheists. Many Goldwater conservatives are atheists. Perhaps you exist in that intersection of the Venn diagrams for atheists and progressives and that is skewing your perception. Progressive atheists have merely supplanted the religion of the state for the gods of theism.
zevon1964 3 weeks ago
@zevon1964 Oh great, someone who seems to fear government like the plague. There is no productive argument to be had here. Good day.
TheDethBringer666 3 weeks ago
Well I was going to join the socialist party but then some asshole made an Atheist party. Fucking intelligent bastards...
TheDethBringer666 1 month ago
The main purpose that I would see behind having a group or organization that consisted of atheists would be primarily to offer support to those who have left a religion--not necessarily like a support group, but just a way of knowing that there are other atheists/like minded people out there who disagree with what the vast majority of religious people propogate (that largest religions are theistic).
utubesux222 1 month ago
I am afraid I would not find very much for me in this party, but good luck to them.
I am rather libertarian myself. I think most of my stances are in line with Seth. If we were friends, we would most likely bore each other to no end, lol.
Jesses001 1 month ago
Until we get rid of our first-past-the-post system, we should only have one united big tent third party with the single purpose of switching over to a voting system that doesn't split the vote. Third parties can't flourish under first-past-the-post. Once that is accomplished the third parties can splinter off.
Mutex50 1 month ago
atheism is just as ridiculous as any stupid religion out there. To think you have the absolute answer to our origin is ridiculous and mathematically absurd in itself. You can't hide behind the cloak of Science either - some of the worlds greatest scientists ever (Pascal, Newton, Keplar) believed in God. Based on logic and rational alone agnosticism is the only reasonable system. Closed minded belief and non-belief are one in the same and best left for the pathologically stupid and unimaginative
Rebdomine23 1 month ago
@Rebdomine23 I'm afraid I don't know what you mean when you say "god." You mean that non-empirical, non-knowledge based, non-premise, from which no standards of proof can be established, and therefore no evidence has ever been found? Theism cannot even define itself, nor even knows what it is trying to prove or how. And I need not hide behind the cloak of past geniuses paying lipservice to religion.
utubesux222 1 month ago
I'm in I love the idea and name of the atheists party. And I think that individuals having an atheistic world view would share similar values I was very impressed with the consensus in the party.
sensimania1 1 month ago
I was skeptical of the party before listening to this podcast. After hearing their perspective, I'm fully behind it.
CallMeIshmael999 1 month ago
Its not a bad idea, and I like the idea of a group decision, but how do you avoid the 'might makes right' that usually comes from majority decisions.
jbiemans77 1 month ago
Atheism is a base determiner of rationality. A moderate, reasonable atheist is someone I'd vote for over any religious candidate, period.
It's not a very cohesive group, admittedly... atheist views on everything but religion are... all over the place. However, I think a middle of the road atheist candidate could really appeal to a lot of people.
Ryakki 1 month ago 7
@Ryakki - agree. i find this podcast kind of uncomfortable in it's insinuation that smart, reasonable people can't come to a consensus. or can't accept compromise within a group. :T
theVIIStar 1 month ago
@Ryakki Unfortunately, there are non-believers (many of them) whose rejection of gods doesn't translate into maturity, education, leadership or vision. And while I've met a great, great many wonderful, thoughtful atheists, I've also seen an alarming number of whiny children, immature malcontents and raging lunatics.
Don't let atheism be your only qualification as you accept friends, promote causes and embrace candidates. Every camp has its bad seeds.
TheThinkingAtheist 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos 5
@TheThinkingAtheist
People who don't believe in magic come in all shapes and sizes and attitudes and levels of education and mental well being... but if an atheist is moderate, and reasonable (qualifiers I added in the first post), and his opponent is a theist... well, his opponent is irrational and out of touch with reality, and I'm going to vote for the atheist :P
The qualifiers are they key to the whole thing working. If he's not a reasonable moderate, his atheism means nothing.
Ryakki 1 month ago
@Ryakki i don't think seth's position is viable-the fact is, we're pretty close on most things with each other, it's a myth that atheists can't be cohesive. if you respect the evidence, if you're reasonable--which most atheists are, we end up very close to each other on the issues.
iconografer 2 weeks ago
we are going to get stump by the religious party again and again if we don't have an atheist up there
klickkzam 1 month ago in playlist More videos from TheThinkingAtheist
atheist are not immune to corruption so how you deal with them Mr ThingingAtheist.
klickkzam 1 month ago in playlist More videos from TheThinkingAtheist
Hey, I want to join in but I'm not to bright and smart. I'm like slightly below average smart
klickkzam 1 month ago in playlist More videos from TheThinkingAtheist
Religion causes war. In the Middle East, Christains, Jewish, Islamic, are all at war fighting over who has the better imaginary friend (LOL). So if the world was Athiest, war would drop SIGNIFICANTLY.
ShadowParanoya 1 month ago
I hope to start a Mathematical Optimization Party. The only thing that matters is optimizing suffering (that means minimizing it).
mphello 1 month ago
Only a shithead who knows nothing about Karl Marx would lump a dedicated socialist and union organizer like Marx, who created the fucking economic philosophy, in with their arch-enemies: the racist anti-semitic NATIONAL socialists like Hitler.
Hypocritically, these same dumb fuckheads don't speak out against democracy even though the word democratic is used in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea).
mphello 1 month ago
@mphello "the fucking economic philosophy" only someone who doesn't understand the fundamentals of economics could describe it as a philosophy invented by a guy...
It'd be like saying Darwin created the philosophy of evolution.
Marx didn't invent anything, he consolidated much older ideas in a rhetorically effective way.
I speak out against Democracy all the time, but Communism and Socialism are both economically, morally, and functionally disastrous. See F.A. Hayek to learn more.
noadmiration 1 month ago
@noadmiration Bullshit. The Soviet Union defeated Nazi Germany. And started the space race. That's not "disastrous".
Your anti-socialist ideology blinds you to logical consistency.
Karl Marx was no less original than Thomas Jefferson or the writers of the US constitution. All built on previous ideas.
Clearly capitalism with CEOs and banksters being allowed to steal TRILLIONS time more money than the rest of us has failed.
mphello 1 month ago
@mphello i get the impression that you are more interested in the dogmatic adherence to a demonstrably invalid political theory, than to actually solving problems.
Have read Hayek? Have you even heard of him? Or like so many others do you go out of your way to avoid any serious critic of you deeply held beliefs.
Any admirer of the Soviet Union rates right along side creationists in their absence of intellectual integrity.
You're not serous, so I'll wish you good day.
noadmiration 1 month ago
@noadmiration I'm no fan of the SU. They were evil, just slightly less evil than Nazi Germany, and hence necessary to defeat them.
Your fanatical anti-Marxism shows that you are a cultist. Marxism is about fighting banksters and corporate CEOs on behalf of the workers, NOT about extreme nationalism. Kim Jong Il, Stalin were all extreme nationalists.
mphello 1 month ago
@mphello Marx was a man who didn't live his principles even at the slightest level. His economic theories are based on fallacious concepts and his emphasis on class consciousnesses makes him just as manipulative as any religious leader. He didn't understand where the means of production actually come from and his irrationality led directly to the death of millions from starvation and war.
Class warfare is re-branded nationalism, tribalism, racism... It's all the same "us vs. them" crap.
noadmiration 1 month ago
@noadmiration
Really?
Then how come 99 % of the US is in the hands of less than 1 %?
Clearly some greedy parasites got rich firstly because of selling shady financial products. When the shit finally hit the fan after being exposed, they made even more money because of the bailout and vulture-capitalism
And Bush the maggot gave the richest even more taxbreaks? Guess they got an even bigger home then, eh?
Classwar my ass, it's the uberrich trying to shift the burden of guilt
sonykroket 1 month ago
@sonykroket You need to go look up the term "monomania"... it might be helpful for you in your future endeavors.
You are the 99% of people who don't study economics, have never run a company or created a job, and yet feel qualified to make demands regarding complex issues you don't understand.
First you study the problem and understand it's context, then you think critically about what you've learned, and then you can propose a solutions to the problem.
You're doing it all wrong.
noadmiration 1 month ago
@noadmiration
How do you know i dont have a business of my own?
You dont have to stude economics to see people are getting fucked by few greedy parasites
sonykroket 1 month ago
There are too many other issues for atheists to disagree upon.
mphello 1 month ago
I agree that this is a ridiculous 'party' (there is certainly NOT a general political consensus among atheists) and should instead be a simple 'special interest group' applying pressure only on subjects that are based on religion. The main problem with creating 'SIGs' like this is that the leadership starts looking for reasons to bitch and whine in order to justify the existence of the group which creates bad publicity, a backlash and the opposite of what we're trying to accomplish.
templarart 1 month ago
Bad idea
MrPhilosopher1950 1 month ago
Atheists coming together would help spread science, reason, critical thinking, and help shed the chains of ignorance that have plagued humanity for thousands of years.
There are millions of children being taught that a mythical superman named Jesus will come flying through the clouds like a superhero and bring an end to human history. This is immoral, and damages the psyche of our youth.
Religion needs to be pushed to the fringes of society. Take a stand for our youth and our civilization.
northoforacle 1 month ago in playlist Radio Podcasts
The issue I take with this idea is that atheism doesn't necessarily need to be represented at all. Ultimately it is religion that needs to no longer be represented. This way the whole problem is averted entirely.
This seems to take a step in the opposite direction from the likes of Christopher Hitchens who takes the tack of taunting religion, but not the people which seems to be way more effective in my eyes than to be herding a group under a ridiculous premise.
roadkill1001 1 month ago 2
@roadkill1001 Amen! Great comment! Worth repeating!
= The issue I take with this idea is that atheism doesn't necessarily need to be represented at all. Ultimately it is religion that needs to no longer be represented. This way the whole problem is averted entirely.=
mphello 1 month ago
Yeah, that political party is National Socialism. Hitler just took Darwins theory and applied it to politics, survival of the fittest. Isn't coincidental thet Karl Marx and Lenin came about not long after Darwin?
RebelSoldat1 1 month ago
@RebelSoldat1 Hitler did not take Darwins theory and apply it to politics, he supported eugenics through the means of genocide which is not the same thing at all.
I encourage you to look up both the definitions of evolution and eugenics on the online dictionary to understand the difference. If this does not make it clear to you then let me know
roadkill1001 1 month ago
@roadkill1001 Actually, yes. Hitler belived that, like athiests, believed man was just another animal, except man is the dominate animal. In order to make a better man, he must euthanize the elderly, retarded, crippled, Jews, gays; anyone who was useless and can't contribute to society. We see this in nature, it is cruel but efficient. If you are out in the wild and you are weak, you are as good as dead. Hitler merely applied principle to government. Cont>
RebelSoldat1 1 month ago
@RebelSoldat1 And your comment on how "religion should not be represented by government" simply can't work. An athiest society cannot exist on it's own, because of the teaching of "This is your only life - live it to the fullest." As the responisbilty of raising children is not the most enjoyable thing in the world, athiests will not bear children in favor of entertainment, work, etc. Look it up yourself, athiest reproduction rates are next to nothing. Cont>
RebelSoldat1 1 month ago
@RebelSoldat1 Cont> Therefore, that makes athiesm a parasitic to a religious society. So, without religion, mankind will not reproduce in the numbers necessary to forfeit extinction. Keep in mind that for a society to maintain the equivalent population size, each individual will have to have one child, thus two children per couple. It is a man's belief's that dictates his form of self-government.
RebelSoldat1 1 month ago
@RebelSoldat1 Firstly, atheist only means a non-belief in god, they can still deny evolution.
As I have said, Hitler used the idea of Eugenics and was also religiously motivated. Being a catholic he felt he had divine right, quite the opposite to believing we came from man (as he actually rejected that idea)
The irony is even if he did use darwins theory in politics, the only thing it shows is hitler was an asshole, not that evolution doesn't exist.
roadkill1001 1 month ago
@roadkill1001 Great response.
RebelSoldat1 just proved what a stupid dumbfuck anti-atheist bigot he is, who knows nothing about history. Torturing him by the methods used by the Spanish Inquisition would be FUN for him, because he clearly makes NO mention of THEM anywhere in his comments.
mphello 1 month ago
Why are people so hung up on the name? All it means is that they are a party that isn't dictated by any religion.
Nebzz 1 month ago in playlist Radio Podcasts
If the only thing joining people together is the atheist perspective, then they would be no better than the religious people who will vote for someone just because they are of the same religion. I don't think an Atheist party is a good idea. We should work to influence the national parties. Remind them that many hard working proud Americans do not believe in any sort of god and should not be marginalized. Besides, atheism is not a political perspective or an economic perspective. Just, nonbelief
tcsam9202 1 month ago in playlist Radio Podcasts 23
@tcsam9202
//If the only thing joining people together is the atheist perspective...//
well, good thing it's not!
flashoftruth 1 month ago
@tcsam9202 Try as they might the religionists love to lump all sorts of baggage on us.
Antiks72 1 month ago
Possibly, would mean that thy all have reason and common sense. However, there is a diverse range of political opinions engendered by atheists, and I think it would be hard to reconcile all the other views other than religion.
braaitongs 1 month ago
The local Pirate Party??? & The ARRRG's have it!
KenMacMillan 1 month ago
Perot was right about NAFTA.
KenMacMillan 1 month ago
10,000 people across 50 state is squat & he's already wrong about the 2nd amendment. No Thanks.
KenMacMillan 1 month ago
I'm an atheist who's not a center left progressive by any stretch of the imagination. In fact I put myself squarely on the right so I could never join this party.
KenMacMillan 1 month ago
How about a National Rational Party?
mfunke 1 month ago
I wouldn't join that. I'd join a national Reason Party however. I'm an Atheist because my reasoning lead me to it. I'd rather follow my reason into a party of reason instead of into a party of broad circumstantial likenesses. Many people claim to be Atheists for many reasons. Only about half or less are truly reasonable and could form a coherent party. Not saying that a party of reason couldn't be corrupted of course there's always a chance of that.
KittenKitoko 1 month ago
This talk kind of reminds me of that episode of southpark where people waged wars over what to call the atheist group haha
d34d23 1 month ago 2
"his cheese definitely slid off his cracker" lol...im going to start using that phrase.
d34d23 1 month ago
I told a girl that I was an atheist, and she thought I worshiped Satan. Mind you, she is a Christian. I tried to tell her that's what I don't believe in, and as matter of fact I don't have a belief. Nothing could bring her to logic. Really, it's astonishing how incoherent these people are and how hard it is to rationalize with them.
buckeye430 1 month ago
Another more libertarian atheist here and find much of the "progressive" agenda absolutely repellent. In addition, they claim they want to base all platforms off "evidence", yet evidence lends itself to the exact opposite positions they espouse. Political party =/= spiritual belief. It's just as bad as any theocratic ideology.
Psitropic 1 month ago
@Psitropic actually, evidence is on the progressives side, but you should dispute their claims individually instead of making a blanket statement.
They have a forum for such debates.
waltermh111 1 month ago
The thing that bothers me the most is, "you can join if you agree with platform." What?! how is your platform going to change if the only people that can join are the ones that already agree with it? Maybe I would join if it was the National Skeptics Party and rallied behind skepticism and came to a platform through debate and consensus. However, a group that encourages change of their platform yet makes it a requirement that you already agree with them seems contradictory.
AtheistKharm 1 month ago
@AtheistKharm They didnt say join if you agree with the platform, its join if you agree with, I forget what they call it, but basically basic rules of the party.
The platform is able to change yearly, so just joining because you believe is not a good idea.
A candidate may not agree with all platform positions. I think you just misunderstood what they were saying.
I guarantee he didnt say only people agreeing with the current platform are welcome.
waltermh111 1 month ago
@waltermh111 0:05:48 he says it. I guess he miss-spoke.. I'll consider joining.
AtheistKharm 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@waltermh111 05:48 he says it. I guess he miss-spoke.. I'll consider joining.
AtheistKharm 1 month ago
@waltermh111 at 5:55 he said it, but I guess he miss-spoke. I'll consider joining.
AtheistKharm 1 month ago
This is a bad idea for the same reason that a "National Non-stampcollector Party" would be a shitty idea. I don't want some committee of atheists attempting to represent the POLITICAL views of every other atheist in America. We are a group defined only by the LACK OF a specific belief. To conflate a political stance with absence of belief is horribly awkward and problematic.
iamheasyouaremeandwe 1 month ago in playlist Radio Podcasts 9
@iamheasyouaremeandwe I agree and i am left leaning
Frizzurd 1 month ago
@iamheasyouaremeandwe
//I don't want some committee of atheists attempting to represent the POLITICAL views of every other atheist in America.//
they don't, the majority does. we are also a group joined together in reason, and that is something that has been missing in politics for a long, long time. how much do you know about the NAP? what is "horribly awkward and problematic" about several 1000 freethinkers agreeing on specific topics and debating others with logic?
flashoftruth 1 month ago
@flashoftruth I'll say it again: To conflate a group's political stance with their absence of a specific belief is horribly awkward and problematic. Maybe this will clarify my concern: imagine how this will look to those outside the movement. When you see "The National Atheist Party" and have people behind it with a full-fledged political platform, by all appearances one could easily get the impression that this group is presuming to somehow work for the specific interests of ALL ATHEISTS.
iamheasyouaremeandwe 1 month ago 2
Now, I'm hoping you won't just respond with something "on message" and repeat that your policies are majority decided--that is entirely beside the point. If you don't want to address my concerns, I can't make you.
iamheasyouaremeandwe 1 month ago
@iamheasyouaremeandwe Atheists are an incredibly diverse demographic defined only by the LACK OF A SPECIFIC BELIEF. This doesn't mean that there aren't trends and patterns within this demographic, but if you want to create a political party from that, then why completely sidestep this in the name? Call yourselves the "reason" party or secular humanist party or something that actually speaks to what you DO believe.
iamheasyouaremeandwe 1 month ago
Oops, didn't mean to put @myself. haha
iamheasyouaremeandwe 1 month ago
@iamheasyouaremeandwe
one might hope in this day and age that someone who considers themselves both atheist and/or a "freethinker" might not "presume" anything without first investigating, researching, and thereby coming to an intelligent conclusion of the facts. we work for the specific interests of as many PEOPLE as possible, not just atheists. anyone who agrees with our platform may join. might help to read it first before you "get an impression" of any merit.
namaste
flashoftruth 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
tcsam9202: "If the only thing joining people together is the atheist perspective, then they would be no better than the religious people who will vote for someone just because they are of the same religion. I don't think an Atheist party is a good idea. We should work to influence the national parties. Remind them that many hard working proud Americans do not believe in any sort of god and should not be marginalized. Besides, atheism is not a political perspective or an economic perspective."
iamheasyouaremeandwe 1 month ago
@iamheasyouaremeandwe The fact that you have a platform (whether I agree with it or not) is not the point. The fact that as many people as possible have bearing on it is not the point. You have once again failed to address my points. Every NAP rep I've conversed with has been entirely unable to respond to these simple arguments that are inevitably going to be thrown your way. Oh well.
iamheasyouaremeandwe 1 month ago
Is it just me, or is the iTunes version of this podcast actually an older episode (closet atheists) with the atheist party title? I've tried to listen on YT several times but am never in one place long enough. Really need the podcast for my mobile device. Guess I'll delete and download again to see if it's fixed.
BigIdeaSeeker 1 month ago 2
I would love to see more (are there any?) political parties based on promoting and funding science and the development of new technology, to the benefit of all of society. That's economical and sociological enough to cover all the issues. And in a way it would be anti-theistic, if that's what you want in a party.
Frottjeif 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrGreeneggsnham
BTW me ole uninformed rightwingspammer. Hitler hijacked the term socialism to get control over Germany, after that there was litte socialism left. It was a dictatorship run by a few religious individuals.
Nice try, too bad we all heard it 3534643 times before
sonykroket 1 month ago
Comment removed
sonykroket 1 month ago
Seth does a great job as a host. As always
stepanster 1 month ago 2
The basic difference b/t 'atheists' and 'believers', is obviously a lack of faith in a higher power (God) and that he is all good, beautiful and loving. The bible is an outdated relic full of half-truths that should be replaced with The Urantia Book, a 20th century revelatory document with over 2,000 pages of philosophy, theosophy, cosmology, and historic evolution of our planet and species. Read this then get back to me.
thezentrixter 1 month ago
OK, NAP states that they are violently opposed to most basic human rights positions and would, given the ability, impose their preferred form of fascism. Let them spew their poison at each other and leave them out of mainstream politics like simlar groups.
evensgrey 1 month ago
Nap is an awful name for a political party. Just sayin
CapQuacer 1 month ago 2
@CapQuacer you could see a billion lazy and sleeping puns with that one, I would be for aap american atheist party :P
BlackMetalWorld 1 month ago
@BlackMetalWorld nothing wrong with AAP, :)
merjemke 1 month ago
It's hard to separate atheism from communism and socialism, and I say this as an atheist capitalist. The reason is that power defends power, and if it isn't through big government that power manipulates you it is through our insecurities and the crutches they lead people to (drugs, religion, and other outright escapism). Education needs to change, it needs to stop serving century's-old power and behave more like an open market for ideas and social reform.
tugger 1 month ago
@tugger communism as first preposed has to yet be truley practiced,a supporter of capatilism is a force for greed in my book, its simply not humanitarian and that should be foundational in all party politics. look at the scandinavians they seem to have a better grasp of living a rational civilised society that works quite well, until their recent flood of muslims.
kram83au 1 month ago
A national political Atheist Party so long as it segregated from COMMUNISM, SOCIALISM, FASCISM, DEMOCRACY would be the Saviour of Humanity...but it must be loyal to OPEN QUESTIONS, not Dogma! ;-)
MushroomedAnymore 1 month ago
Guess who isn't atheist anymore? Christopher Hitchens! Know why? Because in the afterlife it becomes obvious very quickly that there IS a creator whom we commonly refer to as 'God'. What cracks me up about 'atheists' is that their pretentiousness is off the charts and they are completely oblivious to it. Lemme ask you 'atheists' something: Ever 'love' anything? Wife? Child? Dog? Cat? Then you are not only proving the existence of God but you are embodying his divine purpose. Silly bastards......
thezentrixter 1 month ago
@thezentrixter Two things: 1. Look up Pascal's Wager (what you're arguing). It's a shambles. 2.You have conceeded by using a semantic substitute for 'God'. We can explain what you call 'love', but it isn't the same thing as I see it. See to you, your god is a loving god. Because you have not read the bible. This is why your concept of 'love' is absurd, and I can't see that as a valid comparison. At any rate, the god of love is Aphrodite, your god is the god of jealousy and insecurity. ;)
tugger 1 month ago
@thezentrixter you re the silly delusional bastard
phildirt3 1 month ago in playlist Radio Podcasts
@thezentrixter Wow, your reasoning ability is just awful.
Comp1337e 1 month ago
Click on the ads so seth can make more moneys and make awesome videos!!!
pigin007 1 month ago
Hmm, well at least basing a party around atheism gives a stable reason oriented person base.
ViolentKisses87 1 month ago in playlist Radio Podcasts
I don't really ever hear Democrats discussing religion a lot. Most of them are against prayer in school and things like that, and don't seem to pander to the fundamentalist Christians much.
hab99rry 1 month ago in playlist Radio Podcasts
Comment removed
hab99rry 1 month ago in playlist Radio Podcasts
all decision making should be based on humanitarian purposes first and foremost.
kram83au 1 month ago in playlist Radio Podcasts
@mordinvan "We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ." 2 Corinthians 10:5.
Christians cannot be freethinkers, since all their thoughts and imaginings must be brought into captivity in obedience to Christ.
roboticsynapse 1 month ago
@roboticsynapse
Typically few who hold any idea as true regardless of the evidence can be. This would include virtually all members of any religion I know of.
mordinvan 1 month ago
I LIKE PANCAKES ! !! ! !
TEHTYMEKITTEH1 1 month ago in playlist Radio Podcasts
Lol the Atheist National Party v the Republican Atheist Party.. The NAPpers v the RAPpers
anamaxy101 1 month ago
Republican or democrat, they are both different sides to the same quarter!
ReiGrim 1 month ago
National Secular Party would be a better name. Sounds softer but is the same.
tanekki 1 month ago
Having learned that like most atheists, and most importantly, like me, they're liberals/progressives, I'm all in favor. As long as they don't become infested with right-wingers, I'll support their grassroots efforts.
criskity 1 month ago
I would love to be a member of such a party. To be a member of a group who has chosen to view the worl in natural rather than supernatural ways would be nice. I understand that disagreements can still occur but some how I feel that such a group would not allow its self to get bogged down in a lot of false issues.
cynt123able 1 month ago
morality implies authority ??? since when ??? okay, even if you affirm to that; authority= your own self...
dragonsword343 1 month ago
That old man voice is absolutely awesome!
As for the NAP, they seem to be an atheistic version of the Democratic party. Whether or not they should keep the name.. I really don't care if they call themselves that. But, as for them getting my vote, that wouldn't happen. I'm a libertarian, and (obviously), I disagree with their financial stance and their stance on gun control.
Silence233 1 month ago
"Question everything"
Why?
THEEVANTHETOON 1 month ago 2
@THEEVANTHETOON Why not?
koolkranny 1 month ago
I've just found my new podcast.
SaltMyCrackers 1 month ago
Perhaps what is needed in The National Atheist Party would be an emphasis on empirically responsible policy. Consensus will develop around empirically responsible approaches, and those approaches that are in doubt, do the empirical research necessary to settle the problem and acheive a consensus.
Much more difficult than it sounds, but this is what happens in science where consensus means everything.
mspitzer33 1 month ago in playlist Radio Podcasts
excellent episode
Solarcoreg 1 month ago
most atheists are in the new england area.....most new englanders are liberal progressives with a somewhat canadian/european mindset. most atheists are liberal progressives. this makes sense. what doesn't make sense is a national atheist party. i can't comprehend this. there are no fundamentals of atheism therefore there are no values that you can rely on. changing the name to the progressive party would make it more accurate. plus we haven't had one since theodore roosevelt so it's about time.
slytherinspy1960 1 month ago in playlist Radio Podcasts
@slytherinspy1960 ok so i've got to the point where you address this issue and i can understand where you are coming from. not only that but upon further thinking i think there should definitely be a republican atheist party because we need something to balance out the crazy religious right. also i believe someone who is socially liberal and fiscally conservative is more libertarian than republican (unless you are a warhawk).
slytherinspy1960 1 month ago
@MrImmobile Jesus has to shave his anus.Mexican food and hot sauce gives ya the squirts.If you got crap stuck in your ass hair it takes away from your gardening performance.Gotta make that paper if he wants to ever get that el camino.
AtheistFMD518 1 month ago
@AtheistFMD518 ya he loves his spicy food. You would think jesus wouldnt get the shits. If we know anything it is that jesus loves pain/torture and ass burn after some firey shit shooting out ye A hole can give ya some torment. Jesus's ass burns so yours doesnt have to;) wouldnt that be nice.
MrImmobile 1 month ago
I don't think Seth realizes that the vast majority of atheists are left-wing progressives. The reason this happens to be the case is that facts, history, evidence support the progressive positions while showing the right-wing positions on taxation, foreign policy, gun control etc., have failed, at least for the majority of the population, re: the Bush Administration. They may work just fine for the top 1%, but this party seeks to represent a lot more of the citizenry than that.
1955RodHot 1 month ago 2
I don't know why anyone would be surprised an atheist party would be mostly left of center progressives. Just compare the demographics between the two. Of course we don't live in a cookie cutter black and white world, but statistically speaking they tend to fall in the same category.
subnoize123 1 month ago
Just another group looking to be a centralized authority as they split the term people and government as if it is a separate thing. When I hear the hyperbole of "gov in your business" I then start to hear privatization and deregulation which leads to horrible hospitals and disgusting prisons systems which we have to deal with now. And no right to health care? Nationalism is no good no matter how you try to polish it and we know other systems we could model ourselves on. Egos need to be dissolved
jonny7748 1 month ago in playlist Radio Podcasts
We shouldn't call it the national atheist party. We should bring back the Whig party well least swell their ranks.
laxguy22655 1 month ago in playlist Radio Podcasts
i tried downloading the podcast but it was just the help iam a closet atheist episode with the national atheist party title and description what gives?
MrThaininja 1 month ago
@MrThaininja jesus doesnt love you
MrImmobile 1 month ago 2
@MrImmobile But he mows a mean lawn.
AtheistFMD518 1 month ago
@AtheistFMD518 indeed he does. Word on the street is that jesus christ shaves his anus. Good for him ;)
MrImmobile 1 month ago
You guys over in America do seem to have a bit of a problem of 2 practically right wing parties. Us Brits had the same problem with the conservatives and the liberals 100 years ago. But then trade unions funded a new party, it got seats and it's now the left-centre part of Britain: labour. You guys seem to need a labour, maybe the NAP could be that party?... Just my European opinion...
ProDegiaque 1 month ago 2
@ProDegiaque Those are called third parties. America has them but they never get any seats. Of course our silly parliaments still have problems. :(
rangergxi 1 month ago
@rangergxi ...never get any seats of significant numbers, in our lifetimes so far. A fast paced stroll through party history shows we (USA) had times of MANY parties in power, and their was chaos. I believe a true economic equilibrium would be more than two parties, but game theory kind of gets you to two big and maybe one weak third that becomes very powerful in times of parity between the two big. e.g. The Blue Dog Democrat's of 2008-2010; took away the majority power of the Dem's.
WNYmathGuy 1 month ago
@ProDegiaque "Us... had the same problem." WE, damn it!
indignant99 1 month ago
haha ; ) I am wound tight, i need to get laid.
krapptacular 1 month ago
If we change one thing in this country it would be that we don't make laws on on beliefs instead of evidence. Such as, "I think", this is bad so lets make a law. It's your fucking job to teach your kids the truth about bad people and fucked up shit in life.
People want to nerf the world, for the children. GO fuck yourself !
krapptacular 1 month ago
@krapptacular It seems you're being cathartic, but nerfing the world is a stretch. Every society that undergoes either a big growth in population, resources or suffers invasion sees the horrible devastation that a caveat emptor lawless society brings. I don't think the USA is all that nerfed-up when Enron happened and then instead of nerfing it we let worse happen. I'll bet Gabby Giffords doesn't think we are too nerfed up.
If it gets too lawless then quite people bust caps.
WNYmathGuy 1 month ago
How do atheist's express, "Devil's Advocate"? Seems like our host is doing that here.
If a person had to agree with every plank on a parties platform their would be hundreds of thousands of political parties. You decide to align with a party because their platform represents your choices for a better world closer than all the rest of the available parties do. I think I may have to consider switching from Democrat to the Nat. Atheist party. hope I hear where the platform details are.
WNYmathGuy 1 month ago
@WNYmathGuy Oh I see it usanap dot org. I wonder if it's pronounced "Us a nap org" (he asked knowingly...)
WNYmathGuy 1 month ago
The idea of a national atheist party is a silly one. You can have your own party, you can raise funds and run in elections, but don't call yourself an atheist party. While true that the spokespeople here said they do not stand for all atheists, why name yourself that?
The issue here is that if this party ever catches on in the political system (it won't, just because of the name) then people will be stereotyped to it's policies.
Gezab 1 month ago
First I'd like "Atheist church" on Sundays. I need a social life that's as easy as the social life that Christian churches have. Secondly, political parties based on having more or less religion is a terrible idea.
gymlog75 1 month ago
did you change your studio set up... the audio in this podcast seems to have much cleaner and clearer audio! I like it
DODPHOTOGRAPHY 1 month ago
Those who think critically are generally able to look at a situation and talk about the actual problem rather than around the problem. Talking about what really matters rather than irrelevant topics. Of course an atheist party would work better than a rhetoric only party like republican or democrats.
osaka35 1 month ago
An Atheist Party is a bad idea, but more than that it's a pointless idea. No third party is viable right now, and especially not with the word "Atheist" in it.
CosmicApe2 1 month ago
@CosmicApe2 i can see where your coming from, though i do support this idea,as im sure a secular party or a humanist party will come out of this. so getting in their faces with this party name will eventually open the door for further free thinking parties. in time the atheist party will no longer be perceived as a satanist party in the eyes of the religious. good day to yi,.
kram83au 1 month ago
@AdUtrumquePeratus76 I've never understood the fascination with banning nouns. If a person is smart enough to work out that a criminal will ignore laws against murder, why do they think another law will somehow solve the problem.
It's irrational.
Of course the only people who obey gun laws are the law abiding. Criminals by definition don't obey the law...
This is pretty simple logic, I don't get why people who are so boastful of their rationality understand it.
noadmiration 1 month ago
Before I even start listening to this podcast: I agree with adobePC. Altho it is an idea to move toward a more (or back to) secular political system and that would probably be something most atheists agree with, but other then that, there is nothing.
Personally I have both social and liberal ideas, because I don't think it's possible to be strictly one or the other in a society that's so damn diverse.
Shangori 1 month ago in playlist Radio Podcasts