DVF

Can you expand on what you mean by a coherant private presence?

I'm not challenging the idea, I agree with it, but I'd like a clear idea of a proposed structure. I am not suggesting, either, that anyone come together without a clear purpose. As I said, an accessible course of action with a defined goal is required.

On the other hand, Marketing isn't about substance. On the internal side, I agree that we need coherant organization and defined purpose. On the public front, I think what we need most is to be noticed. I certainly wouldn't recommend blind action, and I wouldn't want anyone publicly caught dumb when questioned about the what and why of non-belief in all its varied forms, but, what good is it to know the answer to a question no one is asking? (please don't answer that literaly, I'm sure plenty of us can go on about the virtue of knowledge for it's own sake, but we're talking politics, not philosophy)

We need both. We need definition and purpose, and we need to generate enough noise to make people pay attention.

Rusting Car Bumper

I have a friend who i have known for 22 years. He went through a Christian religious phase and so did I although his was much more involved than mine. That was over 16 years ago.

However, he never called himself an atheist. I never did until about 1995 I'd say.

Why? in my mind then... (1) atheist was a dogmatic position which could not be supported. (2) atheists were rude, arrogant, and obnoxious people (ala Madalyn)

It wasnt until later that I understood that atheism is not a dogmatic and absolutist position.

My friend never called himself an atheist but now I think he is coming around. He of course agrees with all the theistic deflections and knows the bible well because of his religious experience. He, like me, avoided the term atheist because of its negative connotation. He told me outright that atheists to him were negative and obnoxious people who said [his words somewhat] "Im not going to heaven and you aren't either. ha ha ha!"

Part of what I think has changed his mind for two reasons. My discussions telling him that atheism is merely a description of the state of affairs in your mind with regard to one question. and 2(believe it or not) this 9th circuit pledge decision. He basically told me he was sickened by all the reaction to it. He told be he saw a person in Wal-Mart with a t-shirt that said "My country equals my god".

I think many people have either had his experience or mine or know someone who like us. There are a lot of people who are technically atheists who dont think they are because of negative stereotypes or understandings.

or to put it to sleep for a very long time.

If my hypothesis is correct and many people who would otherwise be non-believers openly are not because of the neagtive connotations, then a march which says little more than "religion and god sucks" and "lets file a court case" will put them to sleep for a very long time.

You might have already seen this but read the commentary I made in this thread about how to change this problem.. <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=59&t=000527&p=3" target="_blank">Some thread about the Godless march thing</a>

DC

Jayhawker Soule

I haven't a clue - and, to the extent that nobody else does, we've said a good deal about the utility of such a March. The point was made, not as a tactical or organizational suggestion, but to suggest that calls for a "public presence" beg the question: presence of what?

DVF

The presence of an Atheist American population.

CaptainDave

I think the "Presence" of considerably more than 2,372 atheists getting together to have a beer would be news. Unfortunately, I doubt we could even do that. We'd have to argue about Heinekan vs. Budweiser, of bottles vs. cans, of domestic vs. imported, of home brewing vs. major labels ad nausium. And if we finally reached a consenses on that issue, we'd have to argue about beer vs. wine and wine vs. rum and glass vs. plastic. Then we would have to discuss the relative virtues of alcoholic beverages vs. non-alcoholic. This would lead to a debate of Coke vs. Pepsi, Sprite vs. Mountain Dew, Fresca vs. Ginger ale.

Sorry about the rant and I don't mean to offend anybody but this is SO FRUSTRATING!!! Can we agree on ANYTHING!?

Whew! That feels better.

Okay. Let me take a differant tack. I didn't expect this thread to run the course it has. It seems we can't get away from our disagreements. I'll start a new thread. What CAN we ALL agree on?

Alonzo Fyfe

Um, how can I put this...?

No.

Take a lesson from American business. A company does not prosper by getting everybody to purchase one product. Rather, they respect the individual natures of different customers, and create a range of products, each attracting a range of customers.

An organization should view its task the same way -- where the "products" are the various projects that the organization is engaged in.

Rather than trying to get everybody to "buy into" one project (product) -- with the huge expense and endless debate that this entails. The organization does better offering a range of projects (products), and allowing each customer to "buy into" whatever project (product) suits his or her particular tastes.

"One size fits all" does not work. Typically, "One size fits one."

So, if you have an interesting project, then decribe it. Shout out, "Who is with me on this?" Look at the resources that you have available. (Important part coming up), look at those who DO NOT join your project and see if any subtle changes could be useful in attracting an even larger customer base. And then, put the project to work.

It does not matter that others do not agree. There will always be others who do not agree.

But, at least, something is being done -- which is far better than pursuing the holy grail of getting everybody to agree.

JUST DO IT!

(I read that somewhere.)

DVF

Sorry Captain,

I've been admittedly off topic for most of my posts in this thread. But I for one don't at all mind disagreement. Reasonable raised good points and made me think about my own position, and I thank him for that and any future comment.

And for the record:

Sierra Nevada Porter, bottles.

[Addition by edit]

Adding in because Alonzo posted simultaneously, so I missed his comments. Just wanted to add my agreement.

[ August 02, 2002: Message edited by: DVF ]</p>

marylandnaturegirl

Sorry I haven't had time to read this whole thread.

I will say however that having less than 3,000 endorsers shouldn't be seen as something bad.

You have to look at that figure scientifically and statistically.

You have to consider what percentage of atheists are on line. Then you have to consider what percentage have even heard about the Godless March.

I mean heck only 7500 roughly are even subscribed to Internet Infidels for instance.

Most atheists probably haven't had the time or inclination to join on line atheist groups or maybe they are from older less computer literate generations.

Then you also have to figure that only those atheists that are COMPLETELY out of the closet about it would want to openly endorse such an event with their real name. Afterall, they may live in the bible belt or have a job which could be jeopardized by publicly coming out.

There was already one major news article about the Godless March and they did quote things people said on the internet

<a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/517wiclv.asp" target="_blank">Weekly Standard Article about the Godless Americans March</a>

perhaps those in the closet don't endorse it due to they don't want to be publicly outed. You never know when your name is going to appear in the news print or air waves as being an endorser of godlessness.

People might support the march thus, and even be showing up that aren't willing to publicly put their name out there.

SO you have to factor that in to it as well.

So, someone could devise a statstical model that shows how many people have heard of the March and or visited the website and the proportion of those that have actually endorsed it. Then you extrapolate it to the people that haven't heard of it yet and you get an accurate picture.

So I think the 2300 or whatever thus far is pretty significant statistically speaking.

What I like to look at is all those godless polls and how 7-25% of people (depending on the poll wording) supported removal of the under god part of the pledge.

That should be morestatistically significant especially since tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people took those polls.

Buffman

Thanks for a thoughtful post and reference to a fine, fair, article about the March.

4th Generation Atheist

Good that that article provided so many links. This allows the endorsers to describe themselves in their own words, and organizations of course don't mind if their names get out as supporting "Godlessness" when it's their stated objective.

Thanks for that article. Now, why doesn't the Post have anything, considering it's gonna happen here? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">