A secret society for realists

[Magic Mallard]

One of the major reasons why religions and secret societies (such as the Freemasons) have been so successful is that they provide a social center for their members and, either actively or as a natural byproduct, a support network where their members help each other. This is something realists lack. I have an idea on how to supply that. I would appreciate input.

[FYI: A realist is what I call myself. Someone that holds reality as the only reality. I don't call myself an atheist since I do not like to use a purposely negative label and because it is only partially correct about my position on reality. An atheist means anti-god. I am not anti-god but pro-reality. If anyone can scientifically prove there's a god, I will accept that fact. That and I also don't believe in an afterlife, reincarnation, or any other superstition or myth without supporting scientific proof. Technically, an atheist can believe in an afterlife ... just one without a god. For example, Buddhists are atheists and believe in reincarnation.]

But before I tell the idea, I should make four things clear.

1) What I'm proposing isn't an activist group. It doesn't seek to convert anyone to its position on religion. Its goal is not to confront religious people or organizations. It wouldn't do publicity stunts. Its advertising campaigns would only seek out realists and encourage them to join. Now I assume some here might feel what I'm proposing should be more activist and/or radical, but I believe by it not being so is the best way for it to grow and be successful.

2) I currently have the financial resources to start the first lodge. Very likely, it will be in Las Vegas due to a new company that is interested in hiring me as their chief marketing officer will have its headquarters there. Then again, the new company will operate in Atlanta, Dallas, Los Angeles, Miami, and New York City (as well as possibly London) and my job will require me to be constantly traveling between these cities so I could start it up in one of them instead of Las Vegas. Each are larger than Las Vegas thus there would be more membership potential if I started the first lodge in one of them. And if I picked Los Angeles, there is also the potential to attract Hollywood celebrities as members and the additional media attention that would generate.

3) I will not be seeking employment with this organization that I am trying to found nor any income from it. In fact, as a CMO, I will likely be contributing more to the organization than average members and that's fine with me. That and I hope to be an example for other high-income members to follow. My goal is to found this organization and then be the first fourth-level member (explained below) and select that membership level's first twenty members. I will then be a major advocate of only adding high quality members to that select group. Also, all leadership positions will be unpaid and all employees cannot vote for either their local club's or the international organization's leadership to prevent any public perception that this organization is a Ponzi scheme (a.k.a. pyramid scam).

4) I do not expect this organization to get all realists to join. That is an unrealistic goal. You cannot please all the people all the time. However, this organization can be very successful if a portion of realists see value in joining it. It will also welcome realists that initially don't want to join it if they later change their minds.

Now the idea...

A private social club for realists.

Using the Freemasons as a model, it would have local lodges and be exclusionary. Only realists can join it. Prospective members would need to publicly state before an assembly of the club's membership that they are realists and disavow any belief in any religion, god, myth, or superstition. Due to being fence-sitters, agnostics would not be appropriate for this organization and thus would not be allowed to join.

The initial club itself would be a fitness center. The idea is to provide more than just socializing as a reason for members to join. As a club grows, it would add additional functions to its facility, such as possibly a bowling alley, sand volleyball courts, a free DVD library, espresso cafe, etc. How the individual clubs would grow in these ways would be up to that club's leadership.

There would be four levels of membership. To be a member of a higher level, you must already be a member of all the levels below it.

The first level is free to any realist. This level enables one to enjoy all of the club facilities. Free membership to its fitness center, free bowling, etc. The only thing required for this membership level is the public statement of one's non-religious nature.

The second level of membership is for those willing to give a certain percentage of their income to help financially support the social club and, to a much lesser extent, the international organization. As a reward for doing so, this level would quietly and actively work to help advance each other's business or career. In other works, this is where strong networking is done among members. It would also be this level of membership that elects their local club's leadership.

The third level of membership is for those willing to donate a certain percentage of their income to support certain scientific research. This done through research grants and funding milestone cash prizes. The areas of research being human longevity, human rejuvenation, nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, and human cryonics. The goal of this level is to extend human lifespans as long as possible while at the same time as healthy as possible. This would be the "good public works" of the organization. Aside from the scientific goals this level would help bring about, another reason for members to join this level is that it would only be from this level that the membership of the next and highest level would be selected.

The fourth level would be the group of members that would vote on organization-wide matters and elect the leadership of the international organization. Membership of this level would be restricted to a maximum of 200 so they have a good chance of actually knowing each other. This group would be made up of the most powerful and influential members of the world-wide organization that are members of the third level of membership and would meet twice a year.

As for growing the membership of local clubs, each local club would advertise locally in their local newspapers and on their local TV and radio stations. Advertising accounts would be set up so if a local newspaper or local TV/radio newscast does a news story on certain topics, they can tap an advertising budget to run ads for the local club at such times. The topics being things like favorable news stories about Charles Darwin and evolution and unfavorable news stories about crimes committed by religious ministers and churches. The ads run during/beside these news stories being simply promotional and not evangelical.

As for setting up clubs in new cities, each club would employ at least four full-time employees. A social director, a networker (whose sole focus is helping the second level of membership network), and an assistant for each. When the international organization can afford to do so, it will open a new lodge in a new city. Which city decided by the fourth level of membership. The before-mentioned assistants at all current clubs will then be allowed to apply to be the new club's social director and networker. The best two will be hired and oversee the founding of the new club.

If a realist is not in a city that has a lodge, they can still join the organization. The nearest lodge to them would be their "home" lodge and, saying they seek the second level of membership, its networker would work on their behalf. These lodge-less members will have a major impact on which city will get the next lodge. The more lodge-less members a city possesses, the more likely that will be the city where the next lodge will be opened.

And that's basically the idea. Constructive input sought and appreciated. Also, if you know of another online forum that would be good to post this idea, that would be appreciated as I'm seeking input from a variety of sources.

 

[GoodKat]

I really like this idea. "Metaphysical naturalist" may be a more descriptive term, or perhaps Thunderf00t's "PEARList".

One issue may be that because of the fact that the average member of the group would probably be of higher intelligence than the general populace, a conscious effort would probably have to be made to not look like a bunch of elitist snobs.

 

[Cyrathil]

I can hear the Fundies in a decade or so saying "It's those damned rationalists that control the banks". Really, it sounds like when you came up with the plan you purposely intended to get the most conspiracy theorists riled. Not saying that's exactly a bad thing. It's always a good/fun idea to get conspiracy theorists going.

All that being said, I have to say I love the idea. I live a few blocks away from a Moose Lodge, and I used to live next to a Shriner( apparently they are a secret society bent on controlling the media, or something, but then again, who isn't now-a-days?) , and I've always been curious as what they are for, and I've always wanted to join. I'm also 18, and enthusiasm comes and goes for me, so it might just be one of those moments. I'm just a college student, and I live in Florida( don't plan on staying for long... Once I'm out of college, I'm hoping to start in the U.K.), but in a decade or so I'll need something to do when I'm done implanting secret chips into people who are getting a shot( I'm joking, it's just the "secret society" bit, it's odd hearing someone describe an organization of this type as a secret society, without being nuts. I've usually just heard "gentleman's club" or something of the sort).

I'd just like to ask, what would this organization be called?

And I just have to get it out again; when will we take over the banks?

 

[Magic Mallard]

"Metaphysical naturalist" may be a more descriptive term, or perhaps Thunderf00t's "PEARList".

I like to keep things simple. That and a name that leaves no doubt what I'm talking about. That clarity of concept has gotten some very strong reactions from theists and antagonists since what I'm also basically saying is that I'm realistic and they're not. Interestingly, it has been my experience that it is the antagonists who have gotten the most upset during such discussions as they tend to believe they're more realistic than either realists or theists.

One issue may be that because of the fact that the average member of the group would probably be of higher intelligence than the general populace, a conscious effort would probably have to be made to not look like a bunch of elitist snobs.

I think that since the organization isn't going to be in anyone's face that what you're concerned about isn't going to be an issue. The organization isn't evangelical nor will it do publicity stunts. It will simply be there for those that agree with it and be a unifying force for those individuals. However, I do agree with you that a conscious effort must be made to insure that. For example, I will very much oppose any elitist statements coming out of the organization, even local chapters. Being a marketer, I know you can manipulate statistics to a high degree and that such manipulation can come back to bite you on your behind. You start playing the statistics game and you then open yourself up to an attack along the same lines.

 

[Magic Mallard]

I can hear the Fundies in a decade or so saying "It's those damned rationalists that control the banks". Really, it sounds like when you came up with the plan you purposely intended to get the most conspiracy theorists riled. Not saying that's exactly a bad thing. It's always a good/fun idea to get conspiracy theorists going.

I view conspiracy nuts as merely another way of advertising the group. The more powerful they make the organization appear, the more people will be attracted to it and join. That and the more cable TV networks will do conspiracy shows about it and the tabloids will run front page articles on it. And there will be plenty for the conspiracy nuts (especially the religious conspiracy nuts) to spin their fables with. How the second level of membership only helps each other and to what extent. And then there is the fourth level of membership that is limited to just 200 and these being the organization's more powerful and influential members. I would not be surprised to see conspiracy nuts with their telescopic lenses photographing fourth-level members coming and going from the semi-annual meetings. Those meetings will not be open to the public nor will a public record be given of them. The conspiracy nuts will likely claim this is to hide our organization's world domination plans and not believe that it is simply so its members can freely speak their minds and not be afraid that they'll be called on the public carpet for any statements they make. Hmmm. I probably should insure we hold those meetings on huge luxurious estates with big privacy walls and guarded gates. The conspiracy nuts would love that. :lol:

...it's just the "secret society" bit, it's odd hearing someone describe an organization of this type as a secret society, without being nuts.

It will be a secret society in that it has secrets. Secrets are simply stuff that one doesn't want to be made publicly known. In the case of this organization, that will mainly be what each club's Networker does for second-level members. The deals they help work out between members who are business owners. The introductions and campaigning for members with members who are hiring or have an influence on the hiring process for a job.

And then there will be the fourth-level membership and their semi-annual closed meetings.

I've usually just heard "gentleman's club" or something of the sort

Since women will be as welcomed to join as men, calling it a "gentleman's club" would be incorrect. That and here in American, calling a club a "gentleman's club" will make some people think you're talking about a stripclub. And before someone asks, I would oppose calling it a "Ladies and Gentlemen's Club" as that just sounds too silly in this day and age.

I'd just like to ask, what would this organization be called?

Tentatively, The Realist Club. I have already secured http://www.RealistClub.com (and .info, .net, and .org).

And I just have to get it out again; when will we take over the banks?

November 12, 2015. The conspiracy nuts will be expecting it on that Friday so we'll do it a day earlier to catch them off-guard.

 

[PJDesseyn]

I think you're trying to make it too secretive and not rational enough.

For example, to be a member of the first level, getting all sorts of possibilities (bar, video gallery, bowling alley, library,...) one should at least pay some sort of membership/rent. e.g: a membership card for everything for 50€ or separate cards if you're not going to enjoy everything, e.g. a library card for 5€, etcetera.

Anyway, prizes shouldn't get too big, since that would only keep people away. However, some membership fee should be paid, if only to finance the lodge. It would also be beneficial to get the same started in Europe, around the same time. Europe is less religious, so a good flow of new members can be provided from over here.

Charity and scientific research other than those proposed, would be beneficial as well. For charity, a percentage is kept for the organisation itself, for making the transaction happen, together with the fact that everybody, even non-members, would be allowed to donate. Scientific research shouldn't be limited to improving and lengthening life concerning physical health, but also mental health. Mental health is extremely important. What good is a healthy person, committed for insanity? So helping research concerning mental health is strongly advised. (who knows, we might find a cure for religiosity)

Different fora in different languages (especially when adding European countries) could help provide members, even without lodges in the area. This would of course require moderators and administrators to handle those fora.

Clear rules are also a requirement. For example, we try to help each other out, but if you obviously violate the law, we'll turn you in. Whether you're a level 1 or level 4 member, if you violate the law, you'll be turned in. The lodge may not be compromised by the misbehaviour of individuals. Some internal rules, for the organisation itself, should be implemented as well. For example, if you're caught preaching for a ministry, after having publicly announced your non-religiosity, this should prevent the person from reaching level 4.

Etcetera.

 

[Magic Mallard]

I think you're trying to make it too secretive and not rational enough.

What is secret is stuff that would need to be kept secret (a.k.a. private). Also, because there can be social and job backlash against realists in some cultures, members must agree to not name members to non-members. And what the Networker does for a member should only be told to their lodge's leadership and the Networker's supervisor in a confidential way. Certain decisions by a local lodge's leadership should be kept secret when it involves confidential information. As for the fourth level of membership, this is essentially a steering committee for the international organization. It made up of very successful people with the idea that their proven ability to be successful means they are more likely to steer the organization to greater success. What goes on at the semi-annual meetings of the fourth level needs to be kept confidential (a.k.a. secret) or some members will not join it. Celebrities and CEOs have carefully crafted public images that would make them turn down an invitation to join unless they can be assured that what happens at the semi-annual meetings is kept from the press, public, and general membership.

As for being rational, it is a social club first and foremost. Not an activist or radical group. Its only requirement for membership is being non-religious. It is not meant to be an educational organization either. Those tasks can be and are done by other organizations. The idea is to provide a relaxed social environment free from religion and religious nuts. A place where realists can get to know other realists in their local community and to bond together into their own sub-community there.

For example, to be a member of the first level, getting all sorts of possibilities (bar, video gallery, bowling alley, library,...) one should at least pay some sort of membership/rent. e.g: a membership card for everything for 50€ or separate cards if you're not going to enjoy everything, e.g. a library card for 5€, etcetera.

The idea of not charging a fee for the first level of membership but only requiring a public statement of one's non-religious nature is to get potential members through the front door. To remove the financial objection to joining. That and to welcome those who are poor to the organization. Poor meaning not only working adults barely making enough to get by but also college students, the unemployed, and senior citizens on small pensions.

Thus the paying for the local lodge would fall upon the second level of membership. What this level contributes is what the lodge can do for all its members. What members at this level get for financially supporting their local lodge and the international organization is the assistance of their lodge's Networker to help them advance in their business or career. That and the right to vote for their local lodge's leadership, the ability to raise higher in the organization, and simply the good feeling of providing this great social environment for realists in their local community. It is my contention that new members who are not poor that join as free first-level members will see what the second level is doing for their club, how it is networking amongst themselves, electing their lodge's leadership, and feeling pretty good about themselves. My bet is that they will then rather quickly begin contributing and join the second level.

Anyway, prizes shouldn't get too big, since that would only keep people away.

Prizes??? What prizes??? And how would prizes keep anyone away???

However, some membership fee should be paid, if only to finance the lodge.

The second level of membership does that for their local lodge.

It would also be beneficial to get the same started in Europe, around the same time.

Sorry, I'm not rich. I can afford to start one lodge and that's about it. That and the first lodge will need to be in a city which I will be visiting regularly due to my job. From that point forward, any expansion will need to come from the second level of membership's contributions to the international organization. Initially, the "international" organization will be little more than the first lodge but you got to start somewhere. As part of the fourth level of membership, I will be strongly advocating that the second lodge be opened in Europe (likely London) and the third opened in Asia (likely either Tokyo or Shanghai). Then again, London is a possible city which my job will regularly take me and thus it might be where I start up the first lodge. If that happens, the second lodge would then be in the US. I think a good expansion plan would be to open lodges in the largest city in each country (where such would be legally possible) and then looking to open a lodge in the second largest city in each country. Then third largest ... then fourth ... then fifth ... and so forth.

Europe is less religious, so a good flow of new members can be provided from over here.

In one way that's true, but in another way it isn't. If a country is less tolerant of realists, realists in that country might jump at a chance to join a social club where they can be themselves among other like-minded people.

For charity, a percentage is kept for the organisation itself for making the transaction happen...

No, I would oppose taking a cut of such donations. Third-level members will want to directly donate to these charities so they can reap the tax deduction such donations would earn them. What the international organization will do is just annually check to make sure they donated the minimum amount required for membership to the third level.

...together with the fact that everybody, even non-members, would be allowed to donate.

What I am looking to do is setting up research funds with tax-exempt non-profit organizations in the field of the research initiatives to which third-level members can donate. For example, for Americans, setting up a strong AI research fund with the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence. Anyone can then donate to that fund. Members and non-members. Realists, agnostics, and theists.

Scientific research shouldn't be limited to improving and lengthening life concerning physical health, but also mental health. Mental health is extremely important. What good is a healthy person, committed for insanity? So helping research concerning mental health is strongly advised. (who knows, we might find a cure for religiosity)

While I do understand your point and while I do possess a degree in psychology, I would oppose funding any mental health research. It is just too slippery of a slope. Then the environmentalists will say that environmentalist research should be funded since what's a long life if the world isn't their idea of Eden. Then supporters of other special causes will rationalize why their pet projects should be funded for similar reasons. No, I'll just keep the research focus on extending healthy human lifespans. Realists don't believe in an afterlife. This is it for us. Focusing research on extending this life is something that realists can see the point of doing. Not theists since their reward is after they die and thus why longevity research is so poorly funded around the world. In fact, many religion ministers actively oppose human longevity research as they view it as a way of holding off one's judgment day and/or going against their god's plan.

Different fora in different languages (especially when adding European countries) could help provide members, even without lodges in the area. This would of course require moderators and administrators to handle those fora.

No, I would disagree. There are already fora for realists. This forum being one such example and there are many others. I would focus the organization on just the lodges and making them the best social clubs possible.

Clear rules are also a requirement. For example, we try to help each other out, but if you obviously violate the law, we'll turn you in. Whether you're a level 1 or level 4 member, if you violate the law, you'll be turned in. The lodge may not be compromised by the misbehaviour of individuals.

I do not want the lodges to be extensions of local law enforcement. I do not see that it is its duty to rat on its fellow members. I can see such Big Brother mentality as driving away many people. I know I wouldn't join if this was the case and would quit if it became the case.

Some internal rules, for the organisation itself, should be implemented as well. For example, if you're caught preaching for a ministry, after having publicly announced your non-religiosity, this should prevent the person from reaching level 4.

This will be stated and it will not just prevent a member from reaching fourth level, but will result in their expulsion from their local lodge and the international organization (thus all lodges around the world). The organization is only for realists and that's it. All others need not apply and if they do, they will be rejected. If they lie or later change their mind and begin to preach to members, they'll be tossed out the front door.

 

[PJDesseyn]

So, in other words, you want an organisation where money gets you to a higher level, with the necessity of large donations to evolve due to the lack of membership fees, no fees for hiring/using lodge material, a simple statement of "I'm not religious" to join which makes it extremely easy for religious people to join (which takes the point out of the society), you only want to fund research that only benefits rich people rather than improve rationality in the world, you don't support the advancement of education despite wanting to make a realists' society, you don't want a pyramid system ignoring the fact that this is exactly what you're proposing, you don't want an official forum despite it being a great source of communication, you prefer to secretly and even illegally advance fellow members in society rather than hold them accountable for their actions and finally, you'll check on your members to see if they behave at all times with the threat of being kicked otherwise.

I'm sorry man, but if I want to join an organisation like that, I could join Scientology. For wanting to create a society for realists, you're being very unrealistic.

 

[Magic Mallard]

So, in other words, you want an organisation where money gets you to a higher level,...

Any significant organization needs funding. The question is how that is to be done and what rewards you give those members for giving. There is always trade-off no matter which funding system you pick. I prefer the way I've suggested as it will attract more members and not shun members simply because they're poor.

...with the necessity of large donations to evolve due to the lack of membership fees, no fees for hiring/using lodge material,

There are membership fees. Those are paid by the second level of membership. And I think you greatly overestimate how much this kind of social club will cost and/or underestimate what percentage of members will be second-level members.

...a simple statement of "I'm not religious" to join which makes it extremely easy for religious people to join (which takes the point out of the society),

What??? You think religious people will lie just to gain access to the local lodge? I don't see that at all. To join the organization means leaving their church, publicly denouncing their god(s), and such.

...you only want to fund research that only benefits rich people rather than improve rationality in the world,

And where did I say I only want to fund research that only benefits the rich? Where? Sorry, I don't like it when people make a strawman out of me.

And the idea that medical advances only benefit the rich just shows your ignorance of history.

And funding research into mental health will not improve rationality of the world. The mental health field isn't concerned about making people more rational but curing mental health problems.

...you don't support the advancement of education despite wanting to make a realists' society,

As I stated in my original post, this organization isn't an activist group. It isn't seeking to make anyone a realist. It is a social organization for people who are already realists.

you don't want a pyramid system ignoring the fact that this is exactly what you're proposing,

As a long-time marketer, I know exactly what qualifies as a Ponzi scheme (a.k.a. pyramid scam) and what I propose doesn't. You need to read up on Ponzi schemes. I will be footing the bill for the first lodge and the founding of the international organization and will not seek employment from it or any other income from it. In fact, after it is up and running, I will be contributing to it and its research initiatives like any other third-level member. The employees that work for it cannot vote for its leadership. Only the people who are footing the bill get to vote for leadership. And the leadership positions are all unpaid.

Now how is the above a Ponzi scheme?

...you don't want an official forum despite it being a great source of communication,

The communication is done in the lodges. It doesn't need an online forum. And there are already online fora for realists. This here forum is one such example. If one or more of them want to start up sub-forum about the organization, that's their prerogative.

you prefer to secretly and even illegally advance fellow members in society rather than hold them accountable for their actions

Again, you're making accusations that are unfounded. Where am I preferring to "illegally advance" anyone or anything? Secretly, yes. Illegally, no. And secretly because it isn't anyone's business but those involved in the transaction what their agreement constitutes. The only exceptions being the lodge's leadership and the Networker's supervisor.

...and finally, you'll check on your members to see if they behave at all times with the threat of being kicked otherwise.

If a member starts preaching a religion to members, they have invalidated their public statement of non-religious nature. They are then not right for the organization and will be expelled by it. People will be joining the organization to get away from such people. And I won't have to check on such people. Members will very quickly make the lodge's leadership, Social Director, and/or Networker aware of a religious person preaching their flights of fantasy to the membership. If it is true, that member is expelled. It will be as simple as that.

I'm sorry man, but if I want to join an organisation like that, I could join Scientology. For wanting to create a society for realists, you're being very unrealistic.

First, as I said in my original post, I am not seeking to please all the people all the time. If you don't want to join the organization, no one will hold a gun to your head. And to compare it to Scientology is asinine and speaks poorly of your debating style.

 

[PJDesseyn]

I stick with the points I made, because they're the truth. It won't work, the way you do it. Not on a global scale, that is.

To lengthen life expectancy artificially, first goes to the rich and only years later to the poor (or not at all to the poorest). On top of that, it doesn't improve life or makes more people rational. It would in the long run make the lodges like retirement homes like in Florida.

By looking at mental health issues, not only lengthen life, it also improves life and rationality. Take Alzheimer for example. Mental health decreases, rationality decreases, life expectancy decreases. Take care of that and you have a longer life, more rational people and better mental health. This one example does more than the research you propose.

I KNOW religious people would lie, just to get into the lodge. It's basically a new threat for their religion, so they'll join to see what it's all about and possibly try to get to the top. It certainly wouldn't be the first time. I'm of course not talking about the average fundamentalist retard, with poor intelligence and reasoning skills, who'd flip out if they had to denounce their faith. I'm talking about the more intelligent fundamentalists.

Hell, I do the opposite. I'm an atheist, but I'm still officially a Christian, because it benefits my case. For example, if I'm officially an atheist, I couldn't teach in Christian schools. And, well, that takes out most of the schools over here and Europe is mild concerning those issues. America is worse. So yes, people would lie to get in. You underestimate religious people.

Yes, it's for people who are already realists. And realists should try to make people think rationally. Thus it's only a logical conclusion that, if you fund research, you also try to improve education. Not necessarily with as much money or as a main theme in the company, but still an important part. It doesn't have to be more than the acknowledgement that improving education is in the best interest of the company. The members could then make their own initiatives.

A forum or fora IS / ARE needed. Yes, this is one of many fora for realists, but how about making an official forum that links to these kinds of fora? It would connect realists together under a larger society for realists, attract more members and get a decent, global society going. People don't have to join the forum, but the possibility must be there to unite everyone. Sure, let them make smaller fora, but at least let them link to a main one. It's just like fan-fora for a game. You have the official forum of the game and useful fan-fora that link from it.

You also misunderstood my statement concerning preaching a religion. I was referring to a member of the society preaching their religion to people outside of the society/lodge. E.g.: in their ministry. This would mean you'd have to track the person down, confirm that he's religious and then basically hold a trial and kick him out. Thus having your own set of rules in the society.

As said, try make it more realistic, rather than a religious sect.

 

[Magic Mallard]

It won't work, the way you do it. Not on a global scale, that is.

I guess I'll find out.

To lengthen life expectancy artificially, first goes to the rich and only years later to the poor (or not at all to the poorest).

Even if this is true (which it isn't and history shows it isn't), fine. Even with your assessment, it will eventually get to most everyone. The alternative is it gets to no one.

On top of that, it doesn't improve life or makes more people rational.

Living longer doesn't improve life???

As for making more people rational, that's not the focus of the organization. It isn't an activist group. It is a group for those who are already realists.

It would in the long run make the lodges like retirement homes like in Florida.

Where did I ever say anything about providing nursing home facilities for members?

By looking at mental health issues, not only lengthen life, it also improves life and rationality. Take Alzheimer for example. Mental health decreases, rationality decreases, life expectancy decreases. Take care of that and you have a longer life, more rational people and better mental health. This one example does more than the research you propose.

Is Alzheimer being currently researched? Yes. Massively? Yes.

Is human longevity being currently researched? Yes. Massively? No, it gets very little research money. Theists see to that.

What separates realists from theists? One important difference is that realists believe this physical life is it. There is no second life (a.k.a. afterlife). It then makes sense that realists would fund human longevity research and be a good thing for an organization of realists to fund.

I KNOW religious people would lie, just to get into the lodge. It's basically a new threat for their religion, so they'll join to see what it's all about and possibly try to get to the top. It certainly wouldn't be the first time. I'm of course not talking about the average fundamentalist retard, with poor intelligence and reasoning skills, who'd flip out if they had to denounce their faith. I'm talking about the more intelligent fundamentalists.

I am not be into conspiracy theories so I'll have to disagree.

Hell, I do the opposite. I'm an atheist, but I'm still officially a Christian, because it benefits my case. For example, if I'm officially an atheist, I couldn't teach in Christian schools.

So because you're unethical, you believe others will be.

Fine. Let us say that there are religious people that view my organization as a major threat. They join and ... then what? They publicly renounce their faith so while they're infiltrating my organization they cannot openly go to their church and perform their religious practices. If they do and a member (or a friend of a member) sees this, they'll report it to the lodge. The lodge will look into it and if they see them going to the church and participating in its services, their membership is canceled.

Now let us say that they are able to keep their religious faith a secret. What harm can they do to the organization? To have impact, they'd have to become a second-level member so they're now financially supporting the organization they're there to ... what? Destroy? Okay, let us say they are there to destroy the organization. They would be only one of many second-level members. Just one vote. They won't have much impact that way.

But I'll assume that you think their goal is to get to be a fourth-level member since it is essentially the steering committee for the international organization. First, there would be only a maximum of 200 world-wide that would be this. They would have to be successful individuals to be considered. They will be naturaly be vetted. But let us say that they are very successful and get made part of the fourth-level membership. Again, they are just one of many. Just one vote.

I'm sure you'll say that their goal is to get made part of their club's leadership or even the international organization's leadership. Okay, let us say that happens. Then what? What can they do? Not much. If they try to change the group to becoming religious, they're not just removed from whatever leadership position they possess but booted out of the organization.

Can they spill all our secrets? Sure, but only once and then they're booted. And the damage done will be very mild, if anything. The organization will have no world domination plans to spill.

And, well, that takes out most of the schools over here and Europe is mild concerning those issues. America is worse.

No, the VAST majority of teaching positions here in America are those in public schools and they do not and cannot discriminate against realists.

So yes, people would lie to get in. You underestimate religious people.

But why would they want to? To use the fitness center for free? To bowl a game for free? Okay, that's fine. Sure, if they want to live a lie, I guess that's their choice. I am sure many agnostics will lie to get in as well. So what?

Yes, it's for people who are already realists. And realists should try to make people think rationally.

No, that isn't the purpose of this organization. Again (as I have repeatedly said in replies to you), this group is not an activist or educational group. It is a social club. That's it. It will not lecture to its members. It will not seek to turn one theist into a realist. That isn't its function. Its function is to just be a social club for realists and fund a few certain research initiatives that theists oppose. That's it. And I think many realists will appreciate that. There are activist and even evangelical realists groups already in existence. There isn't a network of social clubs for realists.

Thus it's only a logical conclusion that, if you fund research, you also try to improve education.

No, it is not a logical conclusion. That is not the aim of this organization.

Not necessarily with as much money or as a main theme in the company, but still an important part.

This is the choir. No preaching necessary.

It doesn't have to be more than the acknowledgement that improving education is in the best interest of the company.

But it isn't. Its members are already realists. They do not need to be "saved" or any such thing. The main purpose of this organization is to provide a religious-free social center and a place to get to know other realists. Its research initiatives are to fund research that theists do not want funded.

The members could then make their own initiatives.

And they can do that on their own. There are many realist organizations (such as the Rational Response Squad) that already exist and which members can decide on their own to financially support. But that will not be part of this social club organization.

A forum or fora IS / ARE needed. Yes, this is one of many fora for realists, but how about making an official forum that links to these kinds of fora? It would connect realists together under a larger society for realists, attract more members and get a decent, global society going. People don't have to join the forum, but the possibility must be there to unite everyone. Sure, let them make smaller fora, but at least let them link to a main one. It's just like fan-fora for a game. You have the official forum of the game and useful fan-fora that link from it.

It just isn't needed. Members of my organization don't need it to spoon feed things to them. Members will talk to each other. If a members wants to partake of an online forum like this one, another member will very likely tell them of it.

As for the organization's official website, I can see the most it doing is having a links page to realist fora and that's it. It doesn't need to add another forum as there already plenty that exist.

You also misunderstood my statement concerning preaching a religion. I was referring to a member of the society preaching their religion to people outside of the society/lodge. E.g.: in their ministry. This would mean you'd have to track the person down, confirm that he's religious and then basically hold a trial and kick him out. Thus having your own set of rules in the society.

This is silly. Seriously, this is silly. You think religious ministers will join my organization and STILL preach to their congregation? Come on. That's just silly.

And if it were to happen, all it takes is another member (or a friend of a member) to point out that this is happening. It would then only require one of the lodge's leadership to visit said church and verify it. With such proof, that member is expelled. Real simple. HIGHLY unlikely to happen but if it does, it will be simply and quickly resolved.

As said, try make it more realistic, rather than a religious sect.

Am I trying to make myself into a prophet or messiah? I am I trying to brainwash people? Am I trying to convert the unbelieving? Am I promising a better afterlife? Nonsense.

And there will be a point where I will stop debating you and just say we'll need to agree to disagree. I am creating this organization to do certain things. If those are not what you want to be involved with, that's fine. You do not have to join. As I said in my original post, I will not try to please all the people all the time. This organization is for those that will appreciate what it has to offer. If you think it should be something else and you feel there is a burning need for it, start up your own organization. My organization's official website will very likely give a link to yours on its links page.

 

[PJDesseyn]

The alternative is funding research that DOES help just about everybody. The rich don't need any more benefits, they have enough. As said, curing mental diseases is better than increasing life expectancy for the rich.

No, making people live longer, doesn't make people live BETTER. Even though this may be the only life for us, this doesn't mean increasing life expectancy is a priority. First make the world a better place to live in, before you make people live longer. We're already overpopulated as we speak, so making people live even longer isn't exactly a good thing. Priorities man, priorities.

Unethical? What's unethical about not officially declaring my atheism and losing opportunities because of it? It's not unethical, it's thinking twice before doing something.

Strange how you talked about not creating snitches and having lodge rules as extensions of the law and now saying exactly that: telling if someone breaks the rules of the lodge. It might help if you don't contradict yourself. As I said: breaking the law should be reported. Civil duty. Or do you want it to be like the Church, where the high members protect the low members from the law, either keeping them out of jail or getting them a serious cut on their punishment? Or simply not reporting any crimes and thus approve them?

As for the school thing, I wasn't referring to schools alone, but rather everything concerning ATHEISM (not realism, since those are 2 different things). In America, their are states where you can't be in the jury or testify for the court and things like that.

"Again (as I have repeatedly said in replies to you), this group is not an activist or educational group."
That's because you keep missing my point. I fully understand that the group you want to make is just to have fun, but a realist's duty is to try to make more people rational. Didn't I talk about personal projects, where the group simply acknowledges the project, by merely saying "yeah, that's a good idea, go for it". It might be best if you read my comments better and don't just reply to every single sentence separately. Note that I also didn't say this was help for other realists, but rather for those who aren't realists yet.

"Members of my organization don't need it to spoon feed things to them."
Who in fuck's name is talking about spoon feeding things? Do you even read what I post?
---------------------------------------------
Yes, I'll start my own organisation...as soon as I win Euromillions. And yes, lets stop "debating". You fail to understand half I say and make straw men out of them. I'm just saying that it'll fail the way you suggest it.

 

[Magic Mallard]

PJDesseyn,

You're just a broken record now. I've addressed your points to my best ability. I could try again but I think it would be pointless. Good luck in founding the organization that you think I should be founding. I will be founding what I've proposed in the original post that started this thread.

 

[Anonymous]

PJDesseyn,

You're just a broken record now. I've addressed your points to my best ability. I could try again but I think it would be pointless. Good luck in founding the organization that you think I should be founding. I will be founding what I've proposed in the original post that started this thread.

And what is your timescale for taking over the world?