Recently Banned

[Shell B]

Yeah, you do whatever you want those "do me eyes"

It's all about perception.

[KichigaiNeko]

Do we even need an excuse for a party?

Ummm wait... that's not the sort of party you are talking about?

[Cyberman]

If it's not, it's bloody close.

[Mister Agenda]

I'd rather stop bickering when it is evident that it will get us no where. Just wanted to share an experience I had, not spark a heated debate and have to defend my organization. I am a member... not the organization itself, it doesnt completely define me but to say it plays no part would be a lie. Many of my posts will likely mention the NAP, sorry if you don't like it but I will refrain from shoving it where its not wanted.

Why aren't you guys open to changing the name? This isn't the first time it's come up in various atheist forums I frequent and it's always unpopular. Don't you want atheists to support it? Secular Progressive Party has the advantage of actually coinciding with the group's positions, and hey, most atheists in America are Secular Progressives and the ones who aren't won't be offended about being dragged into it.

Seriously, we spend a lot of time around here trying to convince theists that all there is to atheism is not believing in God. Then you lot come around. I don't expect you to agree with me, but some indication that you understand why people don't like the name of your group would be nice, and the reasoning behind keeping the current name despite that would be nice.

Nothing personal, I'm sure we have a lot of opinions in common.

[m.condon]

I completely understand why people dont like the name. I myself was uncomfortable with it at first and I was not around to vote on it when it was originally decided. The name has its pros and cons but I dont think it should be the main thing we are debating
If we were open to changing everything little thing that bothered people we would be changing so much stuff that in the end we wouldnt be what we set out to be. I dont think we should try to placate everyone like that. We can't make everyone happy all of them time and I would rather challenging people to think different rather than just give in to every request. Not to say I am going to plug my ears to every request. I still dont understand why the name is the most important thing? Its just a name and names can never fully encompass the purpose of an organization. our President Troy Boyle recently said :
Many of you say that it's implicit in the name that we claim to represent ALL atheists. That notion is absurd. Of course we do not. Does the NAACP represent every single "colored person" in the U.S.? Can only a "colored person" join? Of course not. It's just a name. A name that approximates the goals of the party. Our goal is to represent our membership. Would you like us to rename it "The National Party of Only Those Atheists Who Decided to Join but Absolutely Not Intended to be Representative of All Atheists in the U.S. Party"?

There are actually a few people within the party uncomfortable with the name. In order to get it changed they must propose an amendment and it get passed by 66%. So its not impossible but unlikley

[Cyberman]

our President Troy Boyle recently said :
Many of you say that it's implicit in the name that we claim to represent ALL atheists. That notion is absurd. Of course we do not. Does the NAACP represent every single "colored person" in the U.S.? Can only a "colored person" join? Of course not. It's just a name. A name that approximates the goals of the party. Our goal is to represent our membership. Would you like us to rename it "The National Party of Only Those Atheists Who Decided to Join but Absolutely Not Intended to be Representative of All Atheists in the U.S. Party"?

If this person thinks that proposing an unreasonable-seeming alternative name in such a petulantly childish way is meant to be a persuasive argument, I think you have bigger problems than what you call yourselves. Personally I think you can name your organisation whatever you want, it's your image that's being presented to the public. If the party is comfortable with the opposition being handed free ammo over such a pointless issue, go for it.

[RW_9]

Third parties always work. Mmhm.

Me thinks you'll run into two main responses: A) people wanting to involve themselves in the mainstream to some extent, because anything else is pointless, and B) people who don't want to involve themselves at all, because its all pointless.

So don't expect your party to be taken even remotely seriously. Except by fear mongering fundamentalists.

Duverger's Law, look it up.

[Doubting Thomas]

I think we should have a national atheist party. But deciding where & when to hold it would be hard, and I'm sure everyone would need to RSVP so we'd know how much beer & chips to get.

[KichigaiNeko]

We could make it a "Movable Feast Party"...?