(February 3, 2012 at 12:50 pm)m.condon Wrote: 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.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
