Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There has been an ongoing debate on the formation of a united front for the non- religious in an Strong-Atheist forum I belong to. I have noticed the secularization of our civilization to be their preferred form of controlling religious extremes, and thought is would be of interest to see how a range of moderate to strong atheist on this forum would look on a united front or organized non religious movement.
There has been an ongoing debate on the formation of a united front for the non- religious in an Strong-Atheist forum I belong to. I have noticed the secularization of our civilization to be their preferred form of controlling religious extremes, and thought is would be of interest to see how a range of moderate to strong atheist on this forum would look on a united front or organized non religious movement.
It's a nice thought, but it would be like herding schizophrenic cats on meth. It would be like saying "Hey, let's organize a united front out of everyone who doesn't like to watch Monday night football!"
It's a nice thought, but it would be like herding schizophrenic cats on meth. It would be like saying "Hey, let's organize a united front out of everyone who doesn't like to watch Monday night football!"
You beat me to it. With the individualism that makes atheists what they are it would be impossible to get them to agree on one basic tenet. If it could be done, the theists would just claim it to be another religion.
You beat me to it. With the individualism that makes atheists what they are it would be impossible to get them to agree on one basic tenet. If it could be done, the theists would just claim it to be another religion.
Exactly. The disbelief in one thing is not enough to organize a cohesive group on that large of a scale. It's too bad, too. We could do a lot of good, but we're just not followers. I think the only way to get a lot of us (here in the USA) to get behind something would be if we were presented with a viable, solid candidate for president who was openly atheist.
While I agree that organization would be a difficult task, my support of an "united front for the non-religious" group would depend on the militancy of the group. If the group acted as a check for the religious right, I would certainly support that, but I wouldn't support a group acting just as hostile or hateful or intolerant, albeit opposite, as the religious right.
While I agree that organization would be a difficult task, my support of an "united front for the non-religious" group would depend on the militancy of the group. If the group acted as a check for the religious right, I would certainly support that, but I wouldn't support a group acting just as hostile or hateful or intolerant, albeit opposite, as the religious right.
Excellent point. We'd have to rise above their typical shenanigans and be the better people.
Yeah - I don't think it would be possible. I think that while we might all agree that there should be a more distinct separation between church and state - there are so many issues that we would probably all see differently. Perhaps we would all agree on no prayer in school and no God mentioned in the Pledge - but things such as abortion and gay rights - while many of us feel that the reasons to be pro life and anti gay are religious - there are many atheists that are pro life and anti gay as well. I don't know that we would be able to offer much of a united front.
Yeah - I don't think it would be possible. I think that while we might all agree that there should be a more distinct separation between church and state - there are so many issues that we would probably all see differently.
Well said, Dewdrop . . . and perhaps the most important basis of difference would be the ubiquitous equation of church or religion with God. There is a huge difference between the mention or acknowledgment of God and the establishment of a "church" or "religion." Failure to recognize that distinction produces the majority of the conflict being pushed by misguided atheists. Whatever diversity (or dominance) exists regarding religion . . . the US is comprised predominantly of believers in God (of some type). The only constitutional prohibition is against a state religion . . . NOT against a generic acknowledgment of a Creator (of some sort).
I was thinking vaguely along the same lines. Given Herding Cats and the probably OTT shenanigans of some over enthusiastic atheist activists, I'd support any movement that chipped away at the concrete religious edifice that has imprisoned our thinking from the first time we pointed at a star and grunted 'Him Big Daddy'.
Deist/Creatorgod can be left as an interesting speculation like Life on other planets or possible antediluvian civilizations. Just so long as Religion is progressively moved onto the 'Mythology' shelves where it belongs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
