Civil Atheists and Agnostics United for Action (CAAUFA)

Post Reply New Topic

Recent events in Wrong Planet's Politics, Philosophy, and Religion subforum have rocked the community of persons with Asperger's syndrome who are atheist. We have had an election of Most STRIDENT atheist with Awesomelyglorious winning a majority of the vote. Although I was somewhat taken aback by the tone of stridency among the candidates, I considered it to be a necessary evil in campaigning; I even felt this stridency, this fighting spirit, could come of use against the forces of hate and ignorance. Yet we have recently discovered our "Plus Alpha-Atheistic anti-theist" Most Strident Atheist Awesomelyglorious holds crypto-theist views. My fear is this man will lead us straight into the arms of the Pope!

I myself never campaigned for most STRIDENT as I have yearned for a more civil discourse. This is why I am asking for the commonsense atheists of this forum in union with the agnostics of this forum to caucus with me for a real unbelieving alternative to Awesomelyglorious's party of stridency. Caucusing with the Civil Atheists and Agnostics United for Action means we don't eat lunch with the WP Strident Atheists. As I've written elsewhere, I am seeking to build a rational and humanistic coalition of the believing and unbelieving. We stand in opposition to the twin ignorances of atheistic stridency and religious fundamentalism.

Here is our manifesto:

• Civil Atheists and Agnostics shall rally to defend freedom of conscience and its expression.
• Civil Atheists and Agnostics shall push for humanistic values that emphasize the unique value of human life* and its endeavors through art, culture, science, literature, music, and philosophy. We oppose the reduction of humanity to a cog in the machine and to enslavement of the mind to the chains of conformity.
• Civil Atheists and Agnostics shall strive to use wisdom, reason, and empirical evidence to build their claims and to profess ignorance instead of a cocksure rightness.
• Civil Atheists and Agnostics shall seek to deny the advance of theism dressed as science in our public schools' classrooms. Public policy should be guided by the best evidence available and not by religious esoterica.
• Civil Atheists and Agnostics shall seek to engage in a dialogue of mutual respect and understanding with the more progressive and humanist elements of religion and theism.
• A Civil Atheist or Agnostic may not simultaneously caucus with the WP Strident Atheists.
• Civil Atheists and Agnostics shall rally in defense of the environment and of the animals and plants living therein against excessive and unwarranted exploitation. Civil Atheists and Agnostics abhor the cruel and abusive treatment of animals.

* This should not necessarily be taken as an argument against abortion.

Last edited by NeantHumain on 10 Jun 2010, 9:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

No, it is Master_Pedant who will lead you into the arms of the Pope. Keep things straight.


To say that I am ignorant because of disagreement is strident in and of itself, and even worse than anything I necessarily do.


Too controlling. You know that civility has nothing to do with being a humanist, and even further, many atheist thinkers are not humanists, such as Luke Muehlhauser of www.commonsenseatheism.com who opposes speciesism: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=4630 as well as Peter Singer who also opposes the same issue.

I mean, let's put it this way: let's assume that there are intelligent aliens, or transhumans are created, or that somebody creates an AI, why should human beings then be the only beings endowed with specialness? Even though we do not know of such things, I believe that a transhuman future should not be shunned or suppressed with the dogmas of the CAAUFA.

I'm not uniting with any atheists.

Peter Singer was the Australian Humanist Association's Humanist of the Year.

But he still opposes the unique value of human life in many senses of the idea in that he holds that value is a matter of intelligence, and that human fetuses and newborns are less valuable than pigs, so I still hold my invocation of him as correct against NeantHumain's point. I mean, Singer is best known for the use of the term of speciesism as a position he argues against, but NeantHumain is clearly basing his position on speciesism.

Heck, Singer even writes about his opposition to humanism on points:
http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/200410--.htm

"the thoroughly religious idea that humans are at the center of the moral universe still seems to be alive and well in humanist circles"

"my aspirations go beyond human interests and the global ecosystem. Why should we ground values in the welfare of human beings rather than in the welfare of all beings capable of having a welfare at all? That many nonhuman animals have interests and welfares is difficult to deny, for they are certainly capable of feeling pain and suffering as well as pleasure and joy. There is no nonreligious reason why the pains and pleasures of nonhuman animals should not be given equal weight with the similar pains and pleasures of human beings. "

Certainly he would be critical of NeantHumain's statement and you know he would.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 10 Jun 2010, 9:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Do you want me to join "WP Strident Atheists" or not?

I want you to follow your godless heart. Besides, you know it is all a jest anyway.

You are correct insofar as professing humanism alone may lead a reader to conclude we care not a nil about animal welfare or environmental sustainability. A plank has been added in favor of this. Our humanism is about embracing those aspects of human culture that make life significant and enjoyable, a desire to treat others with magnanimity rather than the crass rationalized greed of, for example, Ayn Rand's objectivism, while seeking the removal of superstition and ignorance.

Beyond this, I do not think it is appropriate to take a specific stance on Peter Singer's position on speciesism beyond the CAAUFA being a big enough tent to accommodate Civil Atheists and Agnostics who hold such views as well as those who may take a somewhat more moderate stance. The CAAUFA currently holds no stance on intelligent extraterrestrial life or the possibility and desirability of transhumans.

Well, I am not sure that "Civil Atheism or Agnosticism" is a matter of animal welfare of environmental sustainability at all. Frankly, I don't care about your politically liberal causes, I merely question your philosophical dogmas.

Even further, why not just call yourselves "The Non-religious Liberal Humanists" rather than "Civil Atheists and Agnostics"?


Sure you do. You explicitly have it.

"unique value of human life"

Transhumans, extraterrestrials, and AI are not human life, and thus your proposition of value, which is only contingent upon humanness rather than some quality that human beings have, ultimately by its nature is opposed to such groups.

When we recognized your stridency was a mere cover for your crypto-theism and then saw that you were rallying a base of atheists around you in the name of stridency, the need for a new party of atheists willing to embrace civility above stridency became apparent. We put a humanist outlook above our atheism or agnosticism, and this allows us to make common cause with progressives of, say, a liberal Christian belief system.

By unique value, we are referring to the fact that the value of human dignity should not be placed on market scales. We believe human beings should not be treated as mere means to an end, robotic cogs on a wheel. This is not to say that artificial intelligence, intelligent extraterrestrial life, or transhumans would not have their own unique value.

Right, but you aren't really just "Civil Atheists and Agnostics", you are Progressive Humanist Civil Atheists and Agnostics. Being civil is not necessarily an adherence to another set of core values, but rather it is merely being civil.


So, depending upon how many different ways we find or create life, there could be that many sets of unique value?

Just out of curiosity, what is the purpose of this new organization NeantHumain? Are you afraid that AG and his little band of verbal thugs are making atheists look bad or do you wish to promote civility itself?

I suspect the former because I don't see any reason to exclude theists if the idea was to promote civility, most of us are civil. We have had some strident Christians (most of them fundies) in PPR in the past but most of them stopped coming here a long time ago. I have been here for almost four years so I know who they are, but how many others would know who Ragtime was?

I suggest an alliance with the civil theists with the idea of respecting other people's opinions no matter how strongly we disagree with them. What I dislike about the strident on both sides, is the way they pump up their own egos (and reinforce their own opinions) by putting others down.

Nice to see I'm not the only person with a closed mind on the issue. Now we shall butt heads and hurl elefant tanks.

I think it should be "...for civil action" so that way it can be CAAUFCA

We support a more civil (i.e., moderate) position on the god question in the face of radical atheist stridency that we see as nothing more than a projection of crypto-theism. We'd rather maintain our skeptical identity and work in coalition with liberal theists than assert an overcompensating anti-belief that will only led atheists to theistic positions. Your very own recognition of an endorsement from what you purport to be god is evidence that you strident atheists actually harbor theistic beliefs.

Intelligent, sentient beings, particularly human being as the only example we know, as moral agent rather than inanimate objects to be exploited at will.

Umm... sure. Yes, crypto-theism. And yes, joking about being endorsed by God is surely a sign that I secretly believe in such a being, not a joke at all.


Are sentience and intelligence magical properties? Is the nature of being a "moral agent" some irreducible complexity? I mean, either your position is ad hoc, or your endorsement of "human specialness" really boils down to some appreciation of some quality that people happen to have, which in turn means that any creature that does not have it is subhuman.(even if the creature is within the same species as mankind)