Religion

dmallind

(10,437 posts)

63. Yes atheism is simply an absence of belief

Fri May 4, 2012, 05:32 PM

May 2012

An absence that can be acknowledged by people anywhere on the political spectrum, and yet an absence which is associated in many minds with only part of that spectrum. Reaching out to the other parts is not a bad thing. Absence of belief per se is apolitical and should be seen that way. Maybe a RWer can carry that message betterr than a stereotypically liberal spokesperson, no?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

90 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Republican lobbyist to lead atheist group [View all] rug May 2012 OP

In my experience, conservative atheists have adopted "greed" as a theology immoderate May 2012 #1

There ARE no "Conservative Atheists"...there are Atheists who also happen to be conservative. brooklynite May 2012 #49

That's why I don't have to qualify it. immoderate May 2012 #74

She certainly gets around, doesn't she? cbayer May 2012 #2

Lotts. rug May 2012 #3

Don't know her, not much invested in the SCA, but there's potential here theoretically dmallind May 2012 #4

Rogers has spent half her career fighting those issues. rug May 2012 #6

OK - we disagree politically. Now - how does that impact absence of belief in gods again? dmallind May 2012 #26

The group that hired her has a specific political agenda. Else why hire a lobbyist? rug May 2012 #31

Her main concern seems to be edhopper May 2012 #5

The Right, religious or secular, does not need promotion. rug May 2012 #7

I did not see the implication that it did need promotion in the post you were replying to...(nt) eqfan592 May 2012 #9

It was the second point, regarding her concern about Republicans and the Religious Right. rug May 2012 #10

But might it also make them easier to work with on certain issues? eqfan592 May 2012 #12

I'm sorry. I'm way too cynical of the republican party's willingness, let alone ability, rug May 2012 #15

She does not work for the GOP edhopper May 2012 #13

By attracting conservatives? rug May 2012 #16

If they are conservatives who wish to conserve church-state separation, sure dmallind May 2012 #27

If they hire a lobbyist they are political. rug May 2012 #30

Duh. They are working on church/state separation. Goblinmonger May 2012 #32

In this case, the "they" is a republican lobbyist. rug May 2012 #40

So it is your contention Goblinmonger May 2012 #42

It is my contention that you can't hire republicans to advocate your position. rug May 2012 #43

That's pretty single-minded Goblinmonger May 2012 #44

When it comes to republicans that's a prudent approach. rug May 2012 #45

The Pope reference just brings in your hypocrisy. Goblinmonger May 2012 #51

We could be discussing fried eggs and you'd bring in the Pope. rug May 2012 #52

Nice dodge. And I don't care the Pope's views on fried eggs. Goblinmonger May 2012 #53

Dodge? You're the one trying to change the subject rug May 2012 #54

If the organization wants to attract like-minded people to fight church/state separation Goblinmonger May 2012 #56

Do you consider conservatives "like-minded people"? rug May 2012 #57

There are Republicans that are like-minded on church state separation. Yes. Goblinmonger May 2012 #58

And there are republicans who advocate church state separation while simultaneuesly supporting the rug May 2012 #59

Yep. And this organization is not about supporting Repub or Dem agendas. Goblinmonger May 2012 #60

There seems to be a divergence in viewpoints. rug May 2012 #64

Well, trotsky isn't my sock puppet so he's can post what he wants. Goblinmonger May 2012 #89

Bullshit dmallind May 2012 #46

No it isn't. rug May 2012 #47

Yes it is - a career salesman for Pfizer couldn't sell Merck? dmallind May 2012 #48

I prefer a career salesman for Merck than a Bush White House staffer. rug May 2012 #50

Go to secular.org. trotsky May 2012 #61

Why are they recruiting conservatives? rug May 2012 #62

The SCA is not, by definition a liberal political organization. trotsky May 2012 #65

Lol, you held it together until the last paragraph. rug May 2012 #67

I'm sorry rug but your hypocrisy on all these issues is just too glaring. trotsky May 2012 #75

Ok, right after we finish discussing the atheist organization hiring republicans to recruit conserva rug May 2012 #77

The SCA isn't actually an "atheist" organization, rug. trotsky May 2012 #79

Is there a difference between atheist Americans and nontheistic Americans? rug May 2012 #80

I understand why you are desperate to go off topic. trotsky May 2012 #81

That's taken directly from your excerpt. rug May 2012 #82

You have failed to stay on topic. trotsky May 2012 #83

I admit defeat. rug May 2012 #84

I don't expect the SCA to HAVE a progressive agenda. dmallind May 2012 #69

Ok, we're back on track. rug May 2012 #71

Yes atheism is simply an absence of belief dmallind May 2012 #63

Maybe, but at what cost beyond that single issue? rug May 2012 #66

What do you mean? SCA SHOULD be single issue, with no beyond at all dmallind May 2012 #70

Because lobbying republicans and conservatives comes at a cost, especially with this lobbyist. rug May 2012 #72

Why would they ask the SCA for those things? What can they do? dmallind May 2012 #73

It is good you brought up NARAL as a specific example here. trotsky May 2012 #76

SCA would provide cover and credibility. rug May 2012 #78

I disagree... Joseph8th May 2012 #90

What part of my post did you not understand? edhopper May 2012 #11

Except Silverman overtly expressed his hopes that her appointment will attract conservatives to his rug May 2012 #14

I disagree edhopper May 2012 #17

Then we'll disagree. rug May 2012 #18

AND edhopper May 2012 #19

No, I saw the point. rug May 2012 #20

I don't want to see more Republicans/ Tories/ etc. of any sort! LeftishBrit May 2012 #21

+1 rug May 2012 #23

I rather suspect her main concern is furthering herself politically, but that's just cbayer May 2012 #8

One one hand, I do want more acceptance of atheists, ZombieHorde May 2012 #22

I agree completely with both sentiments. rug May 2012 #24

This message was self-deleted by its author edhopper May 2012 #28

+1000 LeftishBrit May 2012 #68

This may be more appropriate for Creative Speculation, but it's a thought I had. laconicsax May 2012 #25

So do all the people here edhopper May 2012 #29

Depends on what the Republican leader does as the leader. ZombieHorde May 2012 #85

Thanks edhopper May 2012 #88

This Edwina Rogers? struggle4progress May 2012 #33

Why, s4p, she's just a little girl from Alabama. cbayer May 2012 #34

So when she gives a gift, it bears the message... Silent3 May 2012 #35

When she gives a gift, it brings the message "I throw lots of money away" struggle4progress May 2012 #36

Yeah, that too. Silent3 May 2012 #37

Has she even declared herself an atheist? cbayer May 2012 #38

Don't know edhopper May 2012 #39

To be clear she is being paid to advocate for secularism in government. cbayer May 2012 #41

Don't think I am a supporter of hers edhopper May 2012 #55

Actually that holds true for any atheist who decides to give a cash gift to somebody. eqfan592 May 2012 #87

Atheism =/= Political Enlightenment Taverner May 2012 #86