AFA Privacy Charter

[FSM]

I just downloaded the Associate member issues of The Australian Athiest, and something caught my eye:


The involvement of the ATHEIST FOUNDATION OF AUSTRALIA in emotionally charged topics such as
abortion and the intrusion of fundamentalist religion into daily life resulted in a Privacy Charter that prohibits
management from divulging either membership numbers, or any information about members.

What's the background behind this?
Why should the AFA be forced(?) to hide it's membership numbers?
I find it quite sad when a progressive organisation such as this has to hide it's numbers.

I can understand releasing membership details, but just the numbers?

Regards
Dave.

[Lee]

I just downloaded the Associate member issues of The Australian Athiest, and something caught my eye:

The involvement of the ATHEIST FOUNDATION OF AUSTRALIA in emotionally charged topics such as abortion and the intrusion of fundamentalist religion into daily life resulted in a Privacy Charter that prohibits management from divulging either membership numbers, or any information about members. What's the background behind this?
Why should the AFA be forced(?) to hide it's membership numbers?
I find it quite sad when a progressive organisation such as this has to hide it's numbers.

I can understand releasing membership details, but just the numbers?

Regards
Dave.

Sorry we can't divulge the reason! :D

[FSM]

Sorry we can't divulge the reason! :D

I can't tell by your smiley if you are serious or not?

If that is actually the case, then well, I was going to join, but I might now have to reconsider...

Dave.

[Lee]

I can't tell by your smiley if you are serious or not?

If that is actually the case, then well, I was going to join, but I might now have to reconsider...

Dave.

I was joking. :p

[David Nicholls]

Hello FSM,

The Atheist Foundation of Australia’s Privacy Charter was initiated many years ago. The reasons are as you have enunciated. The other factor is, at the time the Charter was introduced, the common question from the media and others was “How many members have you?”

This is very similar to a “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?’ type of question.

Experience has taught us that if we said we have 500,000 members, the retort would be that the Catholic Church has 5 million. The idea that follows is to show that numbers mean something even though the 5 million cannot be substantiated in truth. Nor does it mean anything except forced baptism and indoctrination has taken place with that many people.

This type of argument blurs what Atheism is all about which is generally the intention of those who use it.

The AFA is not promoting anything that relies on numbers to back it up. We depend on credible evidence and numbers do not influence that.

Having said that, the AFA is the largest and most influential by far subscripted Atheist organisation in Australia. This is a generally accepted fact by those in the know. It is also amongst the largest on a per capita basis on the planet.

The policy of not playing the numbers game is one of the AFA’s better decisions. There seems little chance it will change in the foreseeable future.

David

[FSM]

Thanks for the clarification.
Whilst I agree in theory with the reasons and the principle of it, I have to say I do not agree it is a good idea in practice.
I don't think I'll bother to argue the point though and will leave it at that.

Thanks
Dave.

[David Nicholls]

Dave,

Well the way to resolve the issue is to join the AFA, work your way up to Committee of Management level and convince the rest of the Committee of your concerns.

As one attains Committee level in the AFA, a different perspective unfolds when all the facts are known.

Good luck with that :D

David

[Fearless]

Thanks for the clarification.
Whilst I agree in theory with the reasons and the principle of it, I have to say I do not agree it is a good idea in practice.
I don't think I'll bother to argue the point though and will leave it at that.

Thanks
Dave.

I must say you have sparked my curiosity as to why you don't think it is a good idea. Do you need to argue about it. I am curious to hear your POV if nothing else.

I haven't put much thought into it until you brought it up but David's point about not needing numbers to boast over, or try to prove a point with has merit in my eyes and I am not saying this because of my position.

Just trying to think of a reason for an opposing view and why.

Cheers

[FSM]

I must say you have sparked my curiosity as to why you don't think it is a good idea. Do you need to argue about it. I am curious to hear your POV if nothing else.

I haven't put much thought into it until you brought it up but David's point about not needing numbers to boast over, or try to prove a point with has merit in my eyes and I am not saying this because of my position.

Just trying to think of a reason for an opposing view and why.

Cheers

Ok, seeing as that you asked.

Granted, I haven't given this much thought, it's pretty much off the cuff and my first thoughts on the subject...

I agree completely that it shouldn't be about the numbers, but to hide the numbers seems like a bad idea to me.

In my view atheists haven't been heard much because they don't have a voice, hence foundations like the AFA. Which, because it has paid members and a newsletter etc etc it is actually an organisation, and one that purports to speak on behalf of atheists.

Ok, so we now have an organisation, and one that gets approached for all sorts of things by media, perhaps government, and of course the "opposition". It also proactively puts forth arguments to said groups.

Now, whilst it's all nice "in principle" to argue that it's not about the numbers, in practice it (IMO) makes you look a bit foolish as an organisation if you cannot say how many members you represent.
I'd imagine particually so to say the government where that stuff tends to matter.
Arguing that "it doesn't matter" is fine, but it should be done with full transparency in my view.

I'm curious, is there a point at which you are just so damn proud of your numbers that you stop hiding them?
If the AFA had 1,000,000 members, or even 100,000 members, or maybe even 10,000 members, would you seriously hide that?
I'd be willing to bet you'd plaster it all over the front page.
Heck, I'd have a live counter up on the website - "1,000,000 Australian atheists and counting..."

One downside is of course prospective members like myself who would be interested to know just how many members the group has. Heck, it may even hep some people decide to "come out of the closest" and/or be more pro-active if you advertise that you have 10,000 members or whatever.
Numbers build numbers, it's a snowball effect. Hide the numbers and you lessen the effect, often greatly.

Why not proudly publish your numbers (regardless of how small) and fight the fight if the religious nutters try and pull the old numbers game on you?!

I'm sure there are plenty of ways to do that, like pointing out the countless different factions of churches?
or ask how many true Catholics they actually get turning up to church every week?
How many actually believe *everything* in their chosen faith?

I've seen presentations that show when you actually pick apart the numbers atheists often come out on top, or close to it, because their message (lack of a belief) is so clear and concise. The others often lose by dilution.


Having said that, the AFA is the largest and most influential by far subscripted Atheist organisation in Australia. This is a generally accepted fact by those in the know. It is also amongst the largest on a per capita basis on the planet.

To me this seems a tad hypocritical in a way. Boasting to a prospective member about how big you are, yet unwilling to reveals details except to a select few "in the know". It just don't sit right with me. But perhaps I'm the only on who thinks that way.


Publish and be damned I say.

Dave.

[simonecuttlefish]

Why not proudly publish your numbers (regardless of how small) and fight the fight if the religious nutters try and pull the old numbers game on you?!
It's possibly less about religious nutters than the "quality" of the media. It's rather difficult to see anything in the 'news', that was put there simply because it was 'news'. Almost everything that gets published gets put there to suit a predefined 'angle', and then worded accordingly. So yes, I can see it being reduced to something as petty as a 'numbers game'. How many people thought the earth was flat? Were they right? Appeals to popularity (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html) are not a good way to go.



To me this seems a tad hypocritical in a way. Boasting to a prospective member about how big you are, yet unwilling to reveals details except to a select few "in the know". It just don't sit right with me. But perhaps I'm the only on who thinks that way.
I didn't see this as a "boast" or an appeal to popularity, as some information was requested first. It's about the only response you could give without 'playing the numbers' game. Is a single target child rapist "worse" than a repeat offender? Was the damage per child greater? Democratic outcome is determined by numbers, but can someone with 51% of the vote claim a mandate?

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Quality is better than quantity. Mention quantity and there's going to be a big fight about quantity. What we're after is quality - so what if we have so many thousand vs the Catholic church with their billions? The Catholic church enjoys a life of quantity.

Of course it also helps weed out those who are just joining to be part of the guys who are in that group due to the giant numbers, and actually get some quality people in.

To be honest, I agree with not giving out the numbers; after all why should the AFA present itself as a bunch of statistics whores, like religions do?

[FSM]

It's possibly less about religious nutters than the "quality" of the media. It's rather difficult to see anything in the 'news', that was put there simply because it was 'news'. Almost everything that gets published gets put there to suit a predefined 'angle', and then worded accordingly. So yes, I can see it being reduced to something as petty as a 'numbers game'. How many people thought the earth was flat? Were they right? Appeals to popularity (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html) are not a good way to go.


Then don't appeal to popularity.
I'm not arguing whether it's good or bad to do so, but publishing your numbers and choosing to defend them can be two entirely separate issues.
You can publish and then simply refuse to comment or get into any arguments over it.

If it's about not giving the media or others ammunition to play with I think it can also be argued that refusing to give the info is also a risk. They could easily spin the story "The AFA refuses to divulge it's membership numbers because..."


I didn't see this as a "boast" or an appeal to popularity, as some information was requested first. It's about the only response you could give without 'playing the numbers' game. Is a single target child rapist "worse" than a repeat offender? Was the damage per child greater? Democratic outcome is determined by numbers, but can someone with 51% of the vote claim a mandate?In my view as a prospective member who is now curious about the membership policy, yes, it appears as boasting without having the balls to back it up.
BTW, if that original sentence *wasn't* in the associate membership publication I was sent, I likely wouldn't have been the least bit curious about the membership numbers. But because it was there it really stood out to me.
Hmm, now just imagine if I was a reporter or the opposition looking for an angle...

Dave.

[Seamus]

---and one that purports to speak on behalf of atheists.


Umm, well, I can't remember AFA ever making that claim, nor is that the impression I have..

My perception is that AFA speaks for its members,which I think is fair enough for any organisation.

However, I am not member and AFA does not necessarily reflect my views. ( often does,sometimes it does not) It does not speak for me any topic.

"As an atheist" I have no views on any issue other than the existence of god(s).Consequently,I have no need for an organisation to represent my atheist views.

I'm also a (Groucho) Marxist when it comes to joining organisations these days.:p

[davo]

I fail to see what this would achieve in very real benefits, considering atm the AFA is in the news representing a position 1 in 5 Australians hold. This has been done thru hard work focussed on that realisation.

[Darwinsbulldog]

Quality is better than quantity. Mention quantity and there's going to be a big fight about quantity. What we're after is quality - so what if we have so many thousand vs the Catholic church with their billions? The Catholic church enjoys a life of quantity.

Of course it also helps weed out those who are just joining to be part of the guys who are in that group due to the giant numbers, and actually get some quality people in.

To be honest, I agree with not giving out the numbers; after all why should the AFA present itself as a bunch of statistics whores, like religions do?
Well, there is that. Quality matters, but so do numbers. A mere battalion of Abrams tanks can knock off a whole division of T-72's without raising a sweat. But what about two divsions, or three or five? Eventually, numbers can swamp you.

Religion is essentially r-selectionist. The religious memes do not rely on copying fidelity, but numbers. Rationalist memes are all about quality, and as such, are not very good replicators. Because quality takes time and effort. The is no effort involved in accepting woo, but there is effort involved in rejecting it. Accepting woo puts you in the comfortable position of being in the status-quo.
This is the problem with atheism. It is adaptive, and takes account of reality and reason. Religion is stochastic. The religious ideas/memes are subject to aimless drift. It is mindless and un-selective. To the religious, any bum-custard, any mind-fart is valid. Provided it conforms to what has gone before. No testing has gone on.

[wolty]

Interesting post.
FSM, I can see where you are coming from, but find this idea has two sides to it.

1. Open and accountable (to who?) with disclosure. Admirable idea. Leaves everything wide open to misinterpretation due to logical fallacy of numbers. And believe me, the religious love to use numbers.

2. Unknown and secretive? My feelings are, meh. I didn't join the afa because of any reason other than to become a part of the afa. It was time to put my money where my mouth was.

As atheists tend to be independent thinkers, most I would think wouldn't really care about numbers. That is not where we are. Denial of evidence of gods. That is the extent of it.

If we could use something like the number of independant thinkers in Aus as oppossed to religious numbers, it may make people think a little more.

[Xeno]

I agree completely that it shouldn't be about the numbers, but to hide the numbers seems like a bad idea to me.
...

Now, whilst it's all nice "in principle" to argue that it's not about the numbers, in practice ...So, you think it is about the numbers.

Here are some numbers: 2006: 18%. estimated 2010: >20%

What information do you want? Membership of one particular organisation? Why?

[Fearless]

FSM, thanks for replying. Sorry it took me so long to respond again (was at childbirth class with my wife). I believe I understand the argument you are making. Would I be right by saying it is more about being passionate and being 'loud and proud' to put it simplistically?

It is a quandary in that, and as Seamus pointed out, the AFA may speak as a body of atheists, but doesn't so much speak as a holistic voice of authority on its individuals... because we are all so very different with one (mainly) singular common theme. If you back someone into a corner pushing a membership at them then they will most likely walk away. If you say the place is great for you because we have 10,000 members then people will say 'so what?'. The measure of true progress is in what you can achieve without relying on intangible factors.

The last forum I was a moderator (car enthusiast forum) of was always boasting its membership numbers as a reason for becoming a paid member (can run bigger events with the money). The truth of it was that yes, ok they had about 8,000 members on record, but it was only a few hundred that were actually reasonably active around Australia.
Note: the AFA is more than a forum I know, I was just using the forum side as an example

I guess the thing to remember at the end of the day that membership is not expected, it is not mandatory. I guess if you feel that the AFA represents your interests in such a way that you feel that you would like to become more involved then by all means take the next step. Nothing is expected of people though aside from being an atheist ;).

You can't really be critical of becoming a member if it is not mandatory. As that biscuit cooking old lady in The Matrix said 'you make up your own damn mind'... in the nicest possible way.

Try not to be critical of the actual stance and the reasons with comments like:
yes, it appears as boasting without having the balls to back it up.You are entitled to your own opinion granted but you might have to accept that this particular decision was made in the interests of more than the few.

Anyway, I guess you will make your mind up one way or the other at the end of the day but what I will say given you are relatively new is that you certainly don't have to rush into it... try the place on for size for a while then decide if you will :)

Thanks for your sincerity.

[Goldenmane]

They could easily spin the story "The AFA refuses to divulge it's membership numbers because..."

...it's irrelevant.

I can see where you're coming from. However, I don't care. I became a member because I agree with the ideas the AFA presents. And because I know, from personal experience, that the AFA will listen to me if I disagree with anything said in the name of the AFA (provided I support my arguments). That, indeed, is one of the central ideas that the AFA seems wedded to: to avoid dogma at all costs.

It doesn't matter, at all, in the slightest, how many members the AFA has - the whole point is the ideas that come from or are supported by it.

If at any point it became dogmatic or dictatorial, I (and I suspect the majority of other members) would leave forthwith. I'm not a joiner, in general. It's the ideas that matter, not how many other people I can assemble into an agreement chorus.

I will point out, though, that I also don't give a fuck if we're the biggest, smallest, middling, or whatever group of atheists. It's completely irrelevant to me. I've been speaking out on my own for long enough not to care overmuch. Publish and be damned, in a different way.

[BlueDevil]

Out of personal curiosity I would like to know how many members the AFA has. But there is no actual need for me to know, and if the committee think it is in everyones best interests not to make that infomation public then I can live with that.

When I joined the AFA the number of members they had, and whether or not they would disclose that information, was not something I considered in any way. This issue really has no bearing on my continued membership and and I am guessing that would be true for the vast majority of members.

Membership is pretty damned cheap. I would have to have a fairly significant gripe with the AFA not to fork out a paltry $25 to support their good work.

[Worldslaziestbusker]

I joined the AFA with one number in mind: the one representing me. They have my money because I wanted to contribute to an organisation I perceive as valuable. They support a forum I enjoy, put out a newsletter I read from cover to cover and they herded 2500 cats together earlier this year for a fantastic weekend of presentations and socialising. I don't care how many members it has and will pay my dues so long as the forum and newsletters are maintained. Conventions are counted as a very large but non-mandatory bonus.
I'm bummed that DB is pulling the pin because he sees the book issue as a sufficient departure from his values and goals to warrant quitting. I don't agree with him, but I respect his decision and will likewise depart iff the organisation ever becomes sinister to an extent I am uncomfortable with. Until then, the AFA and its forum have my funds and support.
WLB

[Logic please]

FWIW, when I joined AFA, the number of members it had never even entered my head. Maybe I just don't think about things deeply enough. ;) Or maybe, it's irrelevant, as GM says, and other, more important elements, motivated me. :)

Having said that, I can see a point in the OP. Often in the media, someone will bob up in relation to an issue, as "head" of an organisation with a high-falutin' title like, "Network", "Association" etc which attempts to lend credibility to their pronouncements. Close examination often reveals them to be mere "stalking horses" for the personal agenda of the "founder", with very little other support. I don't see this as applying to the AFA.

The fact that the AFA could successfully stage an event like the GAC, sans govt funding, speaks volumes more for its credibility that mere member numbers, IMO. :)

[Praxis]

The fact that the AFA could successfully stage an event like the GAC, sans govt funding, speaks volumes more for its credibility that mere member numbers, IMO.
And there it is folks :)

[SlayerLord]

Since i have been here i have learnt so much. Except spelling. This is a great site to share and listen to a great deal of thoughts. Its sad to see DB leave but there are those out there that can really improve there lives knowing that there not alone. There not the only one thinking its BULLSHIT.
Before any rash judgment think of the greater good. Its bigger than one persons thoughts. Its a community. There will always be friction but i believe its for the best on the whole.

[Darwinsbulldog]

I joined the AFA with one number in mind: the one representing me. They have my money because I wanted to contribute to an organisation I perceive as valuable. They support a forum I enjoy, put out a newsletter I read from cover to cover and they herded 2500 cats together earlier this year for a fantastic weekend of presentations and socialising. I don't care how many members it has and will pay my dues so long as the forum and newsletters are maintained. Conventions are counted as a very large but non-mandatory bonus.
I'm bummed that DB is pulling the pin because he sees the book issue as a sufficient departure from his values and goals to warrant quitting. I don't agree with him, but I respect his decision and will likewise depart iff the organisation ever becomes sinister to an extent I am uncomfortable with. Until then, the AFA and its forum have my funds and support.
WLB
I actually ascended, but the ancients would not let me stay there, so back to Earth I came. :p:D Gawd, too much Stargate SG1 DB! :p:p Besides, DB is just a sock puppet of Seven Of Nine.

[SlayerLord]

DB hasn't left :)

Yes we are a community but what if... someone in the community was intent on destroying what others had spent years building because they had some kind of disorder??

It's just a hypothetical.. but what if???

Then you use as much wisdom as you can and if need be do the hard work.