It's an atheist position when they take it upon themselves. Which they have as Father Heathen said earlier.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Ascent of Atheist sects/religions?
- Thread starter Buddha Dharma
- Start date
It's an atheist position when they take it upon themselves. Which they have as Father Heathen said earlier.
We can't do much worse than the Christians.
Tom
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Not that there's anything wrong with that
As long as it's due to sincerely held religious beliefs.
Tom
I'm not sure I fully agree if one's views and beliefs require willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty to sustain them.
Atheism, frankly, is entirely too little to base anything on.
If anything, I expect the opposite trend to happen: religion should (or even ought to) let go of silly theistic expectations and make its own doctrine ever less reliant on theism for theism's sake.
If anything, I expect the opposite trend to happen: religion should (or even ought to) let go of silly theistic expectations and make its own doctrine ever less reliant on theism for theism's sake.
Nope.
I believe that elective abortion is a bad thing. That doesn't make that an atheist position.
Tom
Was I not snarky enough to be clear?
Tom
It is when a large group take up the position and challenge it publicly.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
I.E. "Hey! That's our job!" *sniffle*
Not just atheists, but anyone with a conscience should speak out and stand up against injustice. Reason and compassion should take precedence over the irrational, arbitrary, and unsubstantiated superstitions that are used as justification to deny others rights and liberty.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
It's not about atheism. It's about integrity. Unless you believe that to be an exclusively atheistic trait.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Good luck with it.
Nope, but every decision will be scrutinized, picked apart, and criticized. Thick skin will be required.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
As it should be. Everything should be examined and questioned. Nothing is beyond reproach.
Not really.
There needs to be some connection to an ideology of some sort.
Atheism is the lack of ideology. Despite religionists trying to claim otherwise.
Tom
No Atheism - Wikipedia is lack of a belief in god(s). There is a large amount of ideologies that do not have god(s). An atheist is just as susceptible to them as anyone else, and also just as susceptible to zealotry as well. We shall see where this new age takes us. But I would be surprised if the results were any different.
Ideology - Wikipedia
Last edited:
Rational Agnostic
Well-Known Member
How likely do you reckon it is that atheists will in the future divide into schools of thought along more defined lines? I figure the possibility is at least pretty good, given the nature of humans.
However, I have a few examples to offer as to how this is somewhat already happening.
In the case where a Buddhist considers themselves atheist (I usually say secular Buddhism, but for this thread let's just say Buddhism) for example- they are an atheist that holds some unverified beliefs and religious premises. Albeit, they are not theistic in nature.
This still constitutes a departure from bare atheism, so I think it's a significant enough difference to note.
Lesser known 'atheistic religions' are Raelianism, Neo-Stoicism, and of course...there's always good old Scientology. None of these believe in gods, and so are inherently atheistic as religions.
However, let's go beyond atheistic religions and discuss mere divisions in non-religious premises. This would be something like the wondrous naturalism of Neil DeGrasse Tyson versus the more analytical naturalism of Daniel Dennett or Sam Harris.
Tyson would emphasize a wonder or awe that the universe and life is as a kind of sum mystery. Perhaps even something akin to non-theistic Monism. The unity of nature is something Tyson loves putting at the center of his views.
On the other end of this you have postmodern philosophy like that of Harris. Harris may not see a unity in nature, or he may not emphasize it if he does. Rather, Harris emphasizes the socialization tendencies of humans as animals, and draws possible scenarios about the development of morality and so on.
This more analytical approach appears different in a very basic sense perhaps than Tyson's wondrous sense about the universe. Harris doesn't go getting giddy feelings of mystery and awe when he looks at the universe.
My question is how long is it going to be, if atheists are indeed the future majority- before they are divided into sects and religions and arguing among themselves over semantics and differences?
Buddhists, Raelians, Scientologists, Taoists, Stoics, Tysonian atheists, Harrisian atheists, Dennettists. I'm trying to be creative in this hypothetical here
What happens if and when atheists start dividing into schools of thought around a teacher or ideal?
There's an episode of South Park where this happens.
Buddha Dharma
Dharma Practitioner
Hit me with your best shot, big boy.
As a gay atheist who is more Pro-Life than most evangelic Christians (and ready to take on everyone
), I ain't too skeerd of the likes of you. Tom
Not all ideologies are religious. But atheism is the lack of a religious ideology, period.
That's it.
There are lots of other beliefs atheists might hold. Some are very common amongst atheists. But there are no defining beliefs or ideological positions that are necessarily atheist.
Tom
Buddha Dharma
Dharma Practitioner
Who me? I only made this thread to get other people's input as I'm not an atheist. This struck me as an interesting thread to create.
That's interesting, because it contradicts what I was told in another thread about bare atheism not being inherently amoral.
Buddha Dharma
Dharma Practitioner
Then we share 2 out of 3 things in common, my friend.