With all do respect, "Atheists for liberty" is an oxymoron.
An oxymoron is a figure of speech that juxtaposes concepts with opposing meanings within a word or phrase that creates an ostensible self-contradiction.
"Liberty" in the context of libertarianism is a religious concept and while it may be that God was replaced by the state and priests with "Experts" and scripture with "science", yes one can argue that it may be godless, but it is far from irreligious.
And atheism as a term simply means absence of belief in the supernatural. And if liberalism means freedom of religion, shouldn't liberty also include religious people? as in freedom of religion?
And if it does not, than liberalism is not about liberty at all, is it? Its about imposing its religious ideas on others. I don't see why would atheists who do not want this be cooped into this religion. Its like LGBTQ trying to say that L's and G's and B's and T's and Q's all have the same mind and are one monolioght. Not to mention that many gay's do not want to be part of that religion nor do they appreciate being placed in it without their consent.
I am an atheists but I am not a liberal. So am I an enemy of liberalism or a friend? Why is my atheism part of someone's religion? Atheism means absence of belief in supranational , it does not mean automatic membership in another religion.
Also, to establish liberty for all it means to destroy all other forms of beliefs? How is that any different than Christianity, communism or Islam trying to impose their religion on others?
You can't have libertarian empire and not be imperialistic, something liberals have become from the start.
The Empire of Liberty is a theme developed first by Thomas Jefferson to identify the "responsibility" of the United States to spread freedom across the world. Jefferson saw the mission of the U.S. in terms of setting an example, expansion into western North America, and by intervention abroad.
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.” ― William F. Buckley
You claim; "We work to defend the fundamental freedoms that support the human quest for knowledge."
Being an atheist and not being part of your organization should qualify as fundamental freedom that support the human quest for knowledge, does it not? And if so why is word "atheism" in the name of your organization?
In other words; Leave my atheism out of your liberalism.
I could not be Christian and not understand what important concepts meant, at least to me, but also valid generally. If only to me, then I don't understand what has been said.
A-theism is without theistic beliefs. Theism is gods, not supernatural.
They would reject religions that follow a god of any name.
I was miraculously, or supernaturally, drawn to Jesus late in life.
What happened did not make sense.
Ha, my spouse became worried about me, came too, and became a more fervent Christian than I am, in ways.
But Jesus said 'If the son of man makes you free, you shall be free indeed'.
I went through what this meant, and became astounded at the depth of it.
The world with its rules, written but arbitrary, and unwritten (socially enforced) was not followed. For example, I had a good time when the mask enforcers came my way. Why? I OBEYED what Jesus said.
Christianity is completely different from any other religion, not just 'all religions differ'
but 'out of this world ' yet enabling me to be in this world.
I also found what you said about liberalism. Never thought about it as a religion but it is, false religion. Most are false. It's no wonder so many misunderstand Christianity when what Jesus taught is so often not followed.
Atheism is abstract, a product of cultural evolution. Religion is not as abstract but seems rooted as much in physical evolution as cultural evolution. Both are closely tied to a social mammals need for authority.
There is legitimate and illegitimate authority. In chimpanzees illegitimate authority is characterized by a tyrannical male and troop instability. Legitimate authority by a male leader that establishes coalitions and spends time grooming subordinates and females. The latter style of leadership leads to stable troops. Human groups tend to follow a similar pattern. Pointing the existence and importance of instincts in human social structures.
In some social mammals the problem of tyrannical males is dealt with by matriarchy. Orcas and elephants being a common example. Bonobos because they are isolated and subject to less troop on troop stress avoid male tyranny through a relaxed or promiscuous sexual behavioral pattern. Bonobos also live in a less intolerant and complex environment making troop survival less dependent on leadership. In Baboons there are mixed models dependent on environmental stresses.
In humans tribal societies tend to follow these natural predilections. Males and females taking leadership roles over various activities. Importantly in harsh environments where intertribal conflict is more constant and resources less evenly dispersed tribal leadership is often more tyrannical. When tribal size exceeds close relatives complexity requires a more authoritarian leadership in most cases.
Civilization is closely tied to agricultural. The first civilizations developed in extremely harsh environments because they were often dependent on irrigation or other complex agricultural systems. These systems required competent management and defense. They pushed social organization to the next level and made hierarchies of competence essential. Part of the hierarchy was almost always a religious structure. Often with tyrannical gods to enforce social norms and protect or legitimize the necessary hierarchy.
Environment has continued to play an important role in social organization. Environmental conditions in the U.S. seem to have been perfect for establishing liberty as foundational principle. Conditions were neither hot or cold enough to require organized agricultural and free productive land was abundant. Further south hostile jungles or desert conditions made large scale agriculture more difficult. The Spanish obsession with gold and silver also created conditions where organized labor and tyrannical control were more likely to take hold. The religious systems were part of that control and tyranny.
In the old world tyranny was unavoidable because of population density and land ownership. Europe for most of it's history was at war largely a result of migration and population density. Nothing needs to have greater hierarchies of competence and social organization than warfare. Religious tolerance is unlikely under those conditions unless stability was already assured by something like the Roman empire even then religious tolerance was sporadic and caprice. Under those conditions however atheism seems to have been more prevalent. Stability and Luxus seem inversely proportional to strict religious adherence.
The religious impulse seems to grow have evolved out of the natural conditions where the environment is easy but unstable. It is likely it is tied to social structures where there is a patriarch or matriarch. Where gods fill in the gaps that a patriarch is not competent.
Today secular religions fill a similar role. They fill in the gaps where the state is demonstratively incompetent. The progressives having failed in almost every aspect of social engineering have created ideological gods to explain the incompetence. When science fails as it has with the recent pandemic progressives turn to almost religious ritual. Everything becomes the fault of "sinner" or people that worship another God. What characterizes the latest stage of progressivism is incompetence largely stemming from the breakdown of competency hierarchies. When one of there members such as Andrew Cuomo kills thousands through gross incompetence not only is he not held responsible but the blame is placed on the non believers. Certain proof that the religious instinct is alive and well in functional atheists. The religious instinct being closely tied to natural hierarchies. Hierarchies not dependent so much on competencies fit for the harsh but stable civilized state but for the easy but unstable natural state where competency is measured in social networks not productivity.
The hostility towards natural law such as the reality of sex differences, the rejection of group selection and the eusociality of large scale civilization, the denial of the connection between genes and intelligence, the over emphasis on networking skills not practical skills, denial of racial differences, etc. are necessary components of the new secular religion that most atheists have adopted. Reality itself is a threat to diversity, inclusion and equity. The DIE religion is inclined towards ritualistic sacrifice to appease the socialist God. The thing they hold most sacred, individuality, is not too great a sacrifice to reach Nirvana. First they will sacrifice the non believers then each other it is the way of the religious monkey.