Theology

[KirklandSignature]

I think think of several atheist factions at this time.

1. The hardline(According to KirklandSignature)-Dawkins,Attenborough, Hitchens(RIP)
2. The Avant Gardists/entertainers-Penn&Teller,Stapleton,Residents,Fanni Tutti,Carlin
3. Feministas
4. The Libertarians/Scientists- Degrasse-Tyson, Maher, Sagan(RIP),Dennett
5. Brights Movement
6. Cato Institute

That's nice, but can you explain how they conflict with each other and other atheist "factions"?

1. Hardliners want religion to "go away" no matter what and could be classifed as militant atheists.
2. The Avant Gardists are the peaceful/pacifist faction and promote the atheist way with their artistical outlets.
3. Feminista atheists are also militant but have a "girl-power" twist to it, conflicts with the two above due to their irrational methos.
4. The smartie Libertarian/scientist atheists seek to inform others through science and showcasing the awesomeness of science.
5&6 are think tanks in practice but are hardcore in preaching the values of libertarianism. Quite turn-offish in terms of appealing to rational folks.

So...you told me how they differ from each other (something I already knew), but you didn't say how they conflict with each other.

They each have varying degrees of how they promote the atheist way;the hard liners are all about being up in your face about it while explaining how negative  religion is. The scientist or smartypants atheists are more passive and calmly explain in detail why a belief is foolish.

[Sabby]

I think this is where a lot of the confusion comes from. There is no 'Atheist way'. Atheism says one thing and one thing only.

What most Atheists and even sensible Theists (though I find the latter kind of contradictory) try and promote are concepts like Rationalism and Humanism. And Sil and SM are partly correct in that proponents of these have their own ideas on how to do this and may disagree with each other.

I don't consider myself an atheist, I consider myself normal. No child is born believing in any god, and we don't call newborns atheists do we?

Depends. Is it lack of belief that makes an Atheist or rejection of the God claim? Plenty of dictionaries have differing definitions, so it can be tricky.

[samoht]

I don't consider myself an atheist, I consider myself normal. No child is born believing in any god, and we don't call newborns atheists do we?

Depends. Is it lack of belief that makes an Atheist or rejection of the God claim? Plenty of dictionaries have differing definitions, so it can be tricky.

Both and neither. It depends upon their exposure to the concept of god. If all children were suddenly raised without the concept of god, non of them would believe in Jesus our lord and saviour. Some of them however may abstractly contrive their own version of a "higher being" as a means of explaining the universe to themselves.

It is safe to say that both ignorance and the yearning for answers is what created religion. It was then escalated and spread as a means governing people. "Follow our rules and you go to heaven. Disobey our rules and you burn in hell." It's a way of controlling people through their superstition. Various religions were sculpted and changed to suit the people with the power.

[Sabby]

Correct. I consider Atheism to come in levels. A newborn baby would just be a pure Atheist. Never even heard of the stuff. Where as someone whose had a particular God explained to them and rejects that claim is an informed Atheist. Someone who rejects the very concept of a higher being all together is a rational Atheist.

One doesn't know, one rejects, one deduces.

[DoomRulz]

It's so stupid. Atheism is not believing in God. How do you f**k up something that simple?

[maledoro]

They each have varying degrees of how they promote the atheist way;the hard liners are all about being up in your face about it while explaining how negative  religion is. The scientist or smartypants atheists are more passive and calmly explain in detail why a belief is foolish.

Again, you fail to show conflict between these groups.

[KirklandSignature]

They each have varying degrees of how they promote the atheist way;the hard liners are all about being up in your face about it while explaining how negative  religion is. The scientist or smartypants atheists are more passive and calmly explain in detail why a belief is foolish.

Again, you fail to show conflict between these groups.

The main conflict is the differing levels of promoting atheism. One end of the spectrum is hardline/aggressive and the other is passive. For instance, Dawkins is more known for his hardline atheistic beliefs which overshadow his career as an evolutionary biologist.

[maledoro]

The main conflict is the differing levels of promoting atheism. One end of the spectrum is hardline/aggressive and the other is passive. For instance, Dawkins is more known for his hardline atheistic beliefs which overshadow his career as an evolutionary biologist.

You're not showing how one group is getting in the way of another. Sure, there is infighting amongst Xtians and amongst Muslims, but where is there conflict like, say, the "Avant-Gardists" hindering the Cato Institute?

[KirklandSignature]

The main conflict is the differing levels of promoting atheism. One end of the spectrum is hardline/aggressive and the other is passive. For instance, Dawkins is more known for his hardline atheistic beliefs which overshadow his career as an evolutionary biologist.

You're not showing how one group is getting in the way of another. Sure, there is infighting amongst Xtians and amongst Muslims, but where is there conflict like, say, the "Avant-Gardists" hindering the Cato Institute?

There isn't a public conflict between the different atheist groups yet. Being a fellow of the institute does mark you off as a more progressive type in my opinion but I don't know of any active feuding between the various cliques. As religion dwindles and social/cultural problems continue to arise, I can see some groups trying to place blame on another if world issues remain.

[maledoro]

There isn't a public conflict between the different atheist groups yet. Being a fellow of the institute does mark you off as a more progressive type in my opinion but I don't know of any active feuding between the various cliques. As religion dwindles and social/cultural problems continue to arise, I can see some groups trying to place blame on another if world issues remain.

So, there is no conflict amongst the atheist "factions".

[DoomRulz]

Mal, if I may chime in here? According to thunderf00t, a popular atheist figure who regularly posts on YouTube, there is. He takes issue with the movement known as Atheism+ because he feels atheism is being hijacked by PCs who have lost sight of what atheism is about at a basic level: not believing in God.

[maledoro]

Mal, if I may chime in here? According to thunderf00t, a popular atheist figure who regularly posts on YouTube, there is. He takes issue with the movement known as Atheism+ because he feels atheism is being hijacked by PCs who have lost sight of what atheism is about at a basic level: not believing in God.

thunderp00f is kinda unfocused himself in that department.

[KirklandSignature]

There isn't a public conflict between the different atheist groups yet. Being a fellow of the institute does mark you off as a more progressive type in my opinion but I don't know of any active feuding between the various cliques. As religion dwindles and social/cultural problems continue to arise, I can see some groups trying to place blame on another if world issues remain.

So, there is no conflict amongst the atheist "factions".

Atheism isn't a one size fits all mentality in my opinion. The beauty of it is that it can be molded to one persons rational beliefs as they see fit with the unifying lack of belief in mythological deities. There is bound to be conflict at some point since it's only a matter of time before governments identify atheists as terrorists or enemies of the state; espeically those that still retain a non-secular infrastructure.

[maledoro]

Atheism isn't a one size fits all mentality in my opinion. The beauty of it is that it can be molded to one persons rational beliefs as they see fit with the unifying lack of belief in mythological deities.

As Doom said earlier, atheism is nothing more than not believing in god. So, it's pretty much "one-size-fits-all" to non-believers.

There is bound to be conflict at some point since it's only a matter of time before governments identify atheists as terrorists or enemies of the state; espeically those that still retain a non-secular infrastructure.

It's been that way for millennia.

[KirklandSignature]

Atheism isn't a one size fits all mentality in my opinion. The beauty of it is that it can be molded to one persons rational beliefs as they see fit with the unifying lack of belief in mythological deities.

As Doom said earlier, atheism is nothing more than not believing in god. So, it's pretty much "one-size-fits-all" to non-believers.


But the point I'm making is that it's how you go about in professing your non-belief. Atheism has many flavors.