The Ascent of Atheist sects/religions?

[Sha'irullah]

As many have said before, this is already a thing. When I was an atheist my atheism was doubted because I was socially conservative. I was literally called a closet Christian for not viewing LGBT rights as a matter of public discord and this had continued on for a while. Even on this own forum I was accused of being a Christian for expressing a socially conservative opinion.

But at the end of the day we are humans and like humans we categorize ourselves into tribes and groups based on anything we find important. Atheism has already become a religion in of itself despite having no tenets. Atheism is no different than contemporary paganism as of now.

 

[Enoch07]

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

It's not me you have to answer to per say. But the masses, you'll understand soon enough.

 

[Enoch07]

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

They can be if a large number atheist takes up a position or ideology. Atheism is kind if a blank slate ideology in itself. Any number of ideologies can be included into it, include religious ideologies so long as a deity is not involved.

 

[columbus]

It's not me you have to answer to per say. But the masses, you'll understand soon enough.

That's pretty vague and oblique. Could you be more clear?
Tom

 

[Enoch07]

That's pretty vague and oblique. Could you be more clear?
Tom

Who did Christians have to answer to when Christianity thought it was the moral authority?

 

[columbus]

They can be if a large number atheist takes up a position or ideology.

No. A large number of Christians believe in Capitalism. That doesn't make it a Christian position. Same thing with Communism. It's more similar to Christianity than Capitalism, but it's still not a Christian position, necessarily.

Atheism is kind if a blank slate ideology in itself. Any number of ideologies can be included into it, include religious ideologies so long as a deity is not involved.

Atheism is not an ideology. It's the lack of a religious ideology. Atheists might also believe in any number of other ideologies. But atheism is not an ideology, itself.
Tom

 

[columbus]

Who did Christians have to answer to when Christianity thought it was the moral authority?

That's a question, not an answer.

Christians, as a group, don't answer to anyone. That's why there are so many versions. From the Quakers to the RCC to the Eastern Orthodox (Protestants aren't Christians, Sister Loratine taught me that in 2nd grade) . Christians just pick whichever human they choose, sometimes themselves.
Christianity is just whatever someone who identifies as a Christian believes. It might be almost anything.
Tom

 

[columbus]

Who did Christians have to answer to when Christianity thought it was the moral authority?

This also reminds me of a joke.

It's about little kids in Sunday school. The punchline comes from a little boy who says, "I know the answer is Jesus. But it sure sounds like Santa Claus."
Tom

 

[Enoch07]

That's a question, not an answer.

Christians, as a group, don't answer to anyone. That's why there are so many versions. From the Quakers to the RCC to the Eastern Orthodox (Protestants aren't Christians, Sister Loratine taught me that in 2nd grade) . Christians just pick whichever human they choose, sometimes themselves.
Christianity is just whatever someone who identifies as a Christian believes. It might be almost anything.
Tom

Wrong, the answer is everyone else in the rest of the world.

 

[Father Heathen]

As many have said before, this is already a thing. When I was an atheist my atheism was doubted because I was socially conservative. I was literally called a closet Christian for not viewing LGBT rights as a matter of public discord and this had continued on for a while. Even on this own forum I was accused of being a Christian for expressing a socially conservative opinion.

To be fair, homophobia is almost always rooted in religious superstition, as there is no rational, real world justification for it, thus it was an understandable presumption.

But at the end of the day we are humans and like humans we categorize ourselves into tribes and groups based on anything we find important. Atheism has already become a religion in of itself despite having no tenets. Atheism is no different than contemporary paganism as of now.

So if somebody does not collect stamps, everything that they do can be attributed to the the fact that they don't collect stamps?

 

[QuestioningMind]

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?

About as likely as folks who don't believe in the Easter Bunny deviding into schools of thought along more defined lines.

 

[Sha'irullah]

To be fair, homophobia is almost always rooted in religious superstition, as there is no rational, real world justification for it, thus it was an understandable presumption.

Not talking about homophobia, and homophobia is something I have witnessed of more in non religious people than anything else. But getting back to the point!

I only stated that I believed one's sexuality doesn't need to be in the spotlight. I never expressed any disdain toward people of any sexual preference. Which is my point, atheists I am encountering now seem more hellbent on moral backstratching that they are making it a de facto tenet of a religion that should not be a religion.

Trying to make atheism a religion is like trying to make Listerine a political theory. Yet somehow atheists are doing just that.

So if somebody does not collect stamps, everything that they do can be attributed to the the fact that they don't collect stamps?

If it becomes a a politicized situation then yes. It requires something important for us human to categorize each other but your example is silly and asinine when facing the fact of human tribalism.

 

[blü 2]

Atheism is simple.....
You got your strong (gods don't exist),
& your weak (don't believe gods exist).

There's at least one other school of thought, which is sometimes called igtheism.

To refute an atheist, you need to give a satisfactory demonstration of a real god.

To show it's a real god, you need a definition of 'god' such that if we found one, we could tell it was a god.

There's no such definition. There's no coherent concept of a real god. The term 'real god' (god with objective existence) has no referent, is meaningless.

(If we're only talking about imaginary gods, there's no such problem, of course. They can be whatever the individual wants.)

(That's not the only form of igtheism, but it's the view I hold.)

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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?

Theists have a lot of different beliefs, but that doesn't mean theism is divided. It's simply an umbrella term.

Same as atheism. People shouldn't make more of it than it is.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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?

I'd dismiss it. If you look at the root word for atheism, it simply means without gods.

Pretty simple and straightforward. I find it's good enough to satisfy the term.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is interesting that some people seem to believe that atheism may give rise to "sects and religions", apparently just because.

I see a lot of projection in there. Religions (or pseudo-religions) do in fact arise awfully often and far too easily, and it would be very good for people in general to attain a better understanding of the reasons why.

Atheism does not mean enough to sustain such an expectation. Even theism, which is at least a claim, would be (and is) hard pressed to do such a thing.

It seems to me that the true matter at hand is how meaningless theism and even "religion" (in a very general, vague sense) have become, and how necessary it is to take a deep, honest look at why that is so and what can be done to rescue their meanings.

 

[ChristineM]

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?

Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. Anything else is down to individual preference

 

[Buddha Dharma]

It is interesting that some people seem to believe that atheism may give rise to "sects and religions", apparently just because.

Not 'just because'. Because of the very things we've discussed in some of these other threads. Not all atheists are going to be content to be nihilists. If an atheist moves beyond bare lack of belief in god, that's framing an ideology. An ideology has potential to become a sect.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. Anything else is down to individual preference

Tell that individual preference bit to Scientologists

 

[ChristineM]

Tell that individual preference bit to Scientologists

Scientology is not under discussion, the misuse of the word atheism is.