The Ascent of Atheist sects/religions?

[Buddha Dharma]

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?

 

[Enoch07]

How likely do you reckon it is that atheists will in the future divide into schools of thought along more defined lines?

Extremely likely, it could be argued some are attempting this today as we speak. Evidence of this on YouTube as you have different sections of atheist arguing for and against ideologies like feminism and social justice. Sargon of Akkad, Blaire White, Andy Warski, Bearing, Steve Shives, Mike Rowland, Kevin Logan, even Dawkins and Harris notable atheist are apart of this divide amongst atheist.

 

[osgart]

Perhaps if they unify, there'll be a demand for conformity that all of us will feel.

New thought, New speak is on the way.

But I don't think that will happen.

How hard do you think they'll push their ideals on society?

Selling them is one thing. Forcing their ideals, is just plain wrong.

 

[Revoltingest]

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

Anything added to those is something
unnecessary to atheism....like enjoying
NASCAR racing....or collecting coins.

 

[YmirGF]

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 don't see this happening anytime soon. For example, I do not "follow" any atheist thinkers. I look kindly on the Four Horsemen but that doesn't mean I bow to their ideas. The problem with the idea is there are as many flavors of atheism as there are atheists. Love Hitchens, like Dawkins, like Harris but am not crazy about Dennitt.

 

[Father Heathen]

Extremely likely, it could be argued some are attempting this today as we speak. Evidence of this on YouTube as you have different sections of atheist arguing for and against ideologies like feminism and social justice. Sargon of Akkad, Blaire White, Andy Warski, Bearing, Steve Shives, Mike Rowland, Kevin Logan, even Dawkins and Harris notable atheist are apart of this divide amongst atheist.

You would also find theists for and against feminism, social justice, and miscellaneous other ideologies because whether or not one believes in god is not a relevant aspect of those issues.

 

[Enoch07]

You would also find theists for and against feminism, social justice, and miscellaneous other ideologies because whether or not one believes in god is not a relevant aspect of those issues.

True, but it is atheist taking the lead on these issues.

 

[Augustus]

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?

Atheists are already divided into countless groups, and we continuously argue over the definition of atheism on RF. Atheists who don't 'toe the party line' on certain issues often have their atheistic credentials questioned by other atheists

Religion is not replaced by nothing, but a replacement ideology. If everyone was atheist there would still be numerous competing ideologies. Some of these would be humanistic and benign, others would have more negative beliefs.

I'd guess that it wouldn't take too long for some pretty bad ones to gain reasonable popularity, and we'd certainly get some form of utopianism sooner or later.

The kind of people who are attracted to radical Islam or fundamentalist Christianity are unlikely to all be replaced by cheerful Secular Humanists.

 

[Aldrnari]

Meh... People are always looking for someone to follow, some kind of label to adopt, or some kind of group to be a part of (or any combination therein). Nothing wrong with that, as it seems to be a human tendency, IMO.

...but then there are weirdos like me who are content just doing their own thing.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Love Hitchens, like Dawkins, like Harris but am not crazy about Dennitt.

Honestly I'm almost the oppsite. I appreciate Dawkin's more science focused books but cringe a little whenever he talks st length about philosophy or social issues. Harris and Hitchens I do not like at all, either for being too pandering 'preaching to the choir' style discourse or being too crass and presumptive of opposing audiences. Of all the Horsemen's books I've read that weren' science focused, Darwin's Dangerous Idea was my favorite. A bit ponderous at times as philosohy discussions will do, but the material felt challenging and informative instead of just ego stroking or inflammatory for inflammatory's sake.

Just goes to show the variety of atheist opinions on those (in)famous figures I suppose.

 

[YmirGF]

Just goes to show the variety of atheist opinions on those (in)famous figures I suppose.

Which was largely my entire point. I'm glad you offered your take on it. Every little bit helps.

 

[HonestJoe]

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.

Yes, but only given the nature of humans, not the non-existent “nature of atheists”. Humans will continue to form all sorts of different social groupings and, as has always been the case, many of them will not be based on believe in any particular deities but I don’t see why that specific factor is worthy of comment in those cases.

I’m sure a few will continue to include an definitive element of non-belief in deities (explicit or implicit) like secular Buddhism or Scientology but I don’t see that becoming significantly more common than it has been in the past, though maybe a little less hidden due to less social and legal threats towards non-believers.

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?

I’d question the implied assumption that atheists (or at the very least, weak atheist agonistics) haven’t always been a majority. It isn’t necessarily true that all the people who follow the social conventions of mainstream religions are actually theists deep down, especially in environments where religious practice was/is a strong social expectation.

The idea that atheists would be expected to form pseudo-religious groupings as directly replacements to abandoned religious ones seems flawed though. It’s like asking that if people stopped playing sport, what would they call their football teams. They wouldn’t have football teams at all, though they’d continue to have reading groups, amateur theatre companies, gaming groups etc. just as they did before.

 

[sayak83]

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?

Secular Humanism, Ayn Rand's Objectivism and various forms of soft Socialism to Hard Communism still are the most popular atheist worldviews.

The Amsterdam Declaration | IHEU

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

What happens if and when atheists start dividing into schools of thought around a teacher or ideal?

Like many of the other atheists who have replied, I don't see this happening.

I feel that an atheist who takes on the mantle with understanding of religion and god concepts isn't necessarily looking for guidance along the lines of the concepts he has just committed to reject. It can be entertaining and informative to hear others' ideas on the subject, surely, but, again (not sure how many times this has been said by now), an atheist is most basically a person who lacks belief in God - how much guidance do you think someone needs in that area really? And otherwise the beliefs and principles of atheists runs the gamut of possibility. There is no core doctrine, or set of beliefs an atheist "must have". Membership is literally limited to:

"Oh, you don't maintain belief in gods? You're in."

 

[Quintessence]

Well, neither theism nor atheism in of themselves really mean all that much. On their own, they don't provide enough substance to base a worldview or way of life around. The examples you list, @Buddha Dharma, are atheism plus some other philosophy or ideology, right? As @Augustus mentioned, there's already something of a structure/classification for that, just as there is for theism. I already see what you're talking about. Though admittedly, on the whole, I don't really divide up the world int o atheists and theists. I don't find the distinction all that useful because the terms in of themselves mean very little.

 

[syo]

How likely do you reckon it is that atheists will in the future divide into schools of thought along more defined lines?

they would be atheists with different morals.

 

[Father Heathen]

True, but it is atheist taking the lead on these issues.

That's because a lot theists (but not all) typically have world views that are heavily influenced by the superstitions and social norms of ancient goat herders, and thus tend to be homophobic, misogynist, ethnocentric, scientifically illiterate, etc.

 

[columbus]

True, but it is atheist taking the lead on these issues.

I am not sure why you think that.

Much less why that makes them atheist issues. Atheists have opinions on subjects like social justice. But there aren't atheist positions on anything, just positions atheists might hold.
Tom

 

[columbus]

That's because a lot theists (but not all) typically have world views that are heavily influenced by the superstitions and social norms of ancient goat herders, and thus tend to be homophobic, misogynist, ethnocentric, scientifically illiterate, etc.

Not that there's anything wrong with that
As long as it's due to sincerely held religious beliefs.
Tom

 

[Enoch07]

That's because a lot theists (but not all) typically have world views that are heavily influenced by the superstitions and social norms of ancient goat herders, and thus tend to be homophobic, misogynist, ethnocentric, scientifically illiterate, etc.

True dat, atheist have taken it upon themselves to be the moral authority of the world. Have fun with it!