Is there an atheist agenda?

[David 2.0]

Authors note: I would like to thank McCulloch for his time and input into the phrasing of this question. Credit is due. Thankyou!

Questions for debate.

1. Is there an atheist agenda?

2.What is the end result of atheism? Is there an end game? A goal? Can it be satisfied, if so how?

3.Should atheism promote religious evolution? Or is it all or nothing? How does atheism fit in the spectrum of religious toleration?

4.Do world views have a hidden or unintended agenda? Must they propagate to survive?

Feel free to answer one or all.

[David 2.0]

I'm going to go one at a time.
I'm also just gonna say what I think, which usually means I'm about to get my behind handed to me in a debate!

1. Is there an atheist agenda?

On paper the answer is suppose to be be no. A strong definition of atheism would in theory prohibit it.

Unfortunately concepts tend to out grow there definition. They morph. They take on a life of there own.
They are reassigned value by outsiders, or by internal forces.

One of mankinds agendas (generally) is to make money. Make a living.

Can I make money off of this idea?(Atheism)
Well, I sure can.
Walla! A few days later you have an interesting read called, "God Blows. A Trumpet Players Journey To Peace Through Atheism."

It sells a billion copies. Simon and Sellbags decide to do a sequel. They also have five books scheduled to drop on the subject of atheism in the fall.

Word on the street is that there competitors are all falling suit.

Sure by definition Atheism sits in an ivory tower with no agenda. A harmless belief in no God. Is it perceived that way? Is it market that way? Has it taken on a life of its own? Does the human factor play any roll?

My gut tells me yes.

Here you referenced anti-theism when talking about the novel writing, not atheism. So that kind of ruins your point. Some people have tried to capitalize on atheism but as far as I'm aware if they are fighting to abolish, oppose or belittle religion that is anti-theism. Movements for tolerance and equality could be based in atheism (depending on the movement) but a lot of the literature out and public debates are more a result of anti-theism than atheism.

I agree for the most part.
The thing is are anti-theists recognizable and substantially different than atheist to the masses?
Does the "collective" view atheism as having an agenda?

When average Joe walks by a book declaring, "God Is Not Great." Agenda is born.
Whether there is one or not?

[TheBlackPhilosophy]

Authors note: I would like to thank McCulloch for his time and input into the phrasing of this question. Credit is due. Thankyou!

Questions for debate.

1. Is there an atheist agenda?

2.What is the end result of atheism? Is there an end game? A goal? Can it be satisfied, if so how?

3.Should atheism promote religious evolution? Or is it all or nothing? How does atheism fit in the spectrum of religious toleration?

4.Do world views have a hidden or unintended agenda? Must they propagate to survive?

Feel free to answer one or all.

1. No, atheists are simply people that either lack a belief in God(s) (Weak Atheism) ;or they believe that God(s) do not exist (Strong Atheism).

2. There is no goal in the idea of Atheism, it is merely an identifying term of what one does or does not believe (Note Strong/Weak Atheism). Atheists may spread ideas such as critical thinking and reason, but by definition atheism itself does not have a goal. To generalize all atheists as spreading critical thinking and reason defies the very definition of atheism.

3. Please define religious evolution, it could either mean a religious form of the Theory of Evolution, or it could refer to the change in religious beliefs over a set period of time. Again, the definition of atheism itself has nothing to do with religious tolerance, it is merely an identifying title. Although if you are referring to the affects of atheism, I would say that in fact it promotes both religious tolerance and religious intolerance. Many a time I have seen atheists on both sides of tolerance and intolerance. But unless research is conducted, nothing can be said for the affects of atheism. Even if you could research, it most likely would be impossible to create a proper method.

4.Yes, but it depends on the world-view. If it is promoted by force (Physically/Psychologically), then it could be classified as having an agenda to propagate. A few good sources for this would be, The God Virus, and Richard Dawkins Theory of the Meme Virus.

As others have said; if anything has an agenda, it would be anti-theism or religion itself. The key is to define religion. I define it as a system of rules to be followed, in order to obtain an end that you are certain of.

As I already stated a couple of times, atheism is one belief, it is not a belief system. It lacks rules, a god, or any sort of worship. In this way it cannot be called religion or even classified as a worldview. It is a component of a worldview, not a whole worldview.

For example, you may notice that I am a Philosopher/Atheist/Pantheist. I have my own conception of what reality is. I also both lack belief in God(s), and do not believe in God(s). As I have reasons not to believe, and reasons against the logical possibility of God(s), or at least TYPES of Gods. Hence why I am an Ignostic, one who must first have a definition of God to be able to evaluate the logic behind it. Hence why I am a Pantheist, one who believes that all is God and God is all.

I usually call myself an atheist because I would rather have a definition that is simple, I do not wish to tell everyone my own personal philosophy. As this would take too much time. This way when I call myself an Atheist/Ignostic, people know I don't believe in the God that they do!

Hope my answer helped, I know some of this has been covered already...

[Filthy Tugboat]

I'm going to go one at a time.
I'm also just gonna say what I think, which usually means I'm about to get my behind handed to me in a debate!

1. Is there an atheist agenda?

On paper the answer is suppose to be be no. A strong definition of atheism would in theory prohibit it.

Unfortunately concepts tend to out grow there definition. They morph. They take on a life of there own.
They are reassigned value by outsiders, or by internal forces.

One of mankinds agendas (generally) is to make money. Make a living.

Can I make money off of this idea?(Atheism)
Well, I sure can.
Walla! A few days later you have an interesting read called, "God Blows. A Trumpet Players Journey To Peace Through Atheism."

It sells a billion copies. Simon and Sellbags decide to do a sequel. They also have five books scheduled to drop on the subject of atheism in the fall.

Word on the street is that there competitors are all falling suit.

Sure by definition Atheism sits in an ivory tower with no agenda. A harmless belief in no God. Is it perceived that way? Is it market that way? Has it taken on a life of its own? Does the human factor play any roll?

My gut tells me yes.

Here you referenced anti-theism when talking about the novel writing, not atheism. So that kind of ruins your point. Some people have tried to capitalize on atheism but as far as I'm aware if they are fighting to abolish, oppose or belittle religion that is anti-theism. Movements for tolerance and equality could be based in atheism (depending on the movement) but a lot of the literature out and public debates are more a result of anti-theism than atheism.

I agree for the most part.
The thing is are anti-theists recognizable and substantially different than atheist to the masses?
Does the "collective" view atheism as having an agenda?

The opinion of the masses is irrelevant, there either is or is not an agenda and no matter how many people think an agenda is there or not does not necessarily reflect the truth.

When average Joe walks by a book declaring, "God Is Not Great." Agenda is born.

In whom? The average Joe?

Whether there is one or not?

The agenda is the motivation and goals of the individuals we are discussing, in this case atheists. Whether the average Joe thinks an agenda is there for all atheists because he saw a book by one atheist (and self-proclaimed anti-theist), nothing changes and this Joe's opinion does not necessarily reflect the truth behind the agenda of the author or other atheists for that matter.

So if you ask if atheism is tied with an agenda, no. It is not. Are atheists tied to an agenda? No, they are not.

[Janx]

Atheism is a knowledge statement that causes debate. This makes people draw lines in the sand. The agenda's come with people who choose (or are chosen) to be on one side or the other. But let's be realistic here: there is more than one debate going on and there are many players from all sides debating each individual issue.

Intellectualism, politics, economics, environmentalism, traditionalism, childcare, etc.

Pick a topic and you'll find atheists and theists on all sides.

The debates which draw TV spots and crowds are those which are highly polarized. Fundamentalist creationists vs atheist scientists gets the headlines. This makes it seem like it's about God but creationism is about fear of knowledge and progress. Science is compatible with religion and most theists I know agree that fundies should be rounded up and put on a special island where they can drink all the koolaid they want.

In today's media saturated environment the majority moderates are not represented because it makes for boring headlines and book titles.

[Flail]

I'm going to go one at a time.
I'm also just gonna say what I think, which usually means I'm about to get my behind handed to me in a debate!

1. Is there an atheist agenda?

On paper the answer is suppose to be be no. A strong definition of atheism would in theory prohibit it.

Unfortunately concepts tend to out grow there definition. They morph. They take on a life of there own.
They are reassigned value by outsiders, or by internal forces.

One of mankinds agendas (generally) is to make money. Make a living.

Can I make money off of this idea?(Atheism)
Well, I sure can.
Walla! A few days later you have an interesting read called, "God Blows. A Trumpet Players Journey To Peace Through Atheism."

It sells a billion copies. Simon and Sellbags decide to do a sequel. They also have five books scheduled to drop on the subject of atheism in the fall.

Word on the street is that there competitors are all falling suit.

Sure by definition Atheism sits in an ivory tower with no agenda. A harmless belief in no God. Is it perceived that way? Is it market that way? Has it taken on a life of its own? Does the human factor play any roll?

My gut tells me yes.

Here you referenced anti-theism when talking about the novel writing, not atheism. So that kind of ruins your point. Some people have tried to capitalize on atheism but as far as I'm aware if they are fighting to abolish, oppose or belittle religion that is anti-theism. Movements for tolerance and equality could be based in atheism (depending on the movement) but a lot of the literature out and public debates are more a result of anti-theism than atheism.

I agree for the most part.
The thing is are anti-theists recognizable and substantially different than atheist to the masses?
Does the "collective" view atheism as having an agenda?

The opinion of the masses is irrelevant, there either is or is not an agenda and no matter how many people think an agenda is there or not does not necessarily reflect the truth.

When average Joe walks by a book declaring, "God Is Not Great." Agenda is born.

In whom? The average Joe?

Whether there is one or not?

The agenda is the motivation and goals of the individuals we are discussing, in this case atheists. Whether the average Joe thinks an agenda is there for all atheists because he saw a book by one atheist (and self-proclaimed anti-theist), nothing changes and this Joe's opinion does not necessarily reflect the truth behind the agenda of the author or other atheists for that matter.

So if you ask if atheism is tied with an agenda, no. It is not. Are atheists tied to an agenda? No, they are not.

Agenda: "a list of things to be done or problems to be addressed."

Atheists and non-theists do not have an agenda as such, but rather stand in rejection of Christian and theistic agendas by being skeptical of their claims and demanding evidence and coherence in support of them. Only if one considers the rejection of another's agenda as an agenda could atheists be claimed as having an agenda; and even so it would be a one item 'list'.

[David 2.0]

Good replys much to graze on.

I guess I am convinced!

The perception of agenda does not indicate an actually one. Its not "Atheisms" fault.

I think anti-theist do cloud up the issue and upon reflection I am guilty of falling for the hype sometimes.

Get working on number 2. Thanks for the replys.

[McCulloch]

Certain subsets of atheism do have an agenda.

• Humanism aims at the fullest possible development of every human being. We affirm the worth, dignity and autonomy of the individual and the right of every human being to the greatest possible freedom compatible with the rights of others. Humanism ventures to build a world on the idea of the free person responsible to society.
• Humanism holds that democracy and human development are matters of right. The principles of democracy and human rights can be applied to many human relationships and are not restricted to methods of government.
• Humanism advocates the application of the methods of science and free inquiry to the problems of human welfare. We believe that the solutions to the world's problems lie in human thought and action rather than divine intervention. Humanism recognizes that reliable knowledge of the world and ourselves arises through a continuing process; of observation, evaluation and revision.
• Humanism recognizes our dependence on and responsibility for the natural world.
• Humanism is committed to education free from indoctrination.
• Humanism affirms the importance of literature, music, and the visual and performing arts for personal development and fulfillment.

Humanism can be a way of life for everyone everywhere.

_________________
Phrases taken from the Amsterdam Declaration of the IHEU Congress 2002.
Source URL: http://www.iheu.org/amsterdamdeclaration
Copyright 1952-2007 International Humanist and Ethical Union

[David 2.0]

Hi get right to it....

2.What is the end result of atheism? Is there an end game? A goal? Can it be satisfied, if so how?

I am wondering if the nature of conflict and ideas has any effect on these questions. In a way those concepts could animate the direction of atheism. Ideas spread. Especially good ones.

So perhaps by default the "unintended" end game is for atheism to grow to capacity. Like any good idea?

Outside of that possibility I would say that atheism just sits around and does nothing. No goals, no end game, doesn't care if its satisfied. Just an idea. Kinda a slacker really.

[EduChris]

...What is the end result of atheism? Is there an end game? A goal? Can it be satisfied, if so how?...

The goal of atheism is to convince themselves and others that Ultimate Reality does not involve purpose. This is their grand, overarching assumption--and insofar as they are human, they seek to justify their grand assumption and to draw others into their way of thinking.

...how does atheism fit in the spectrum of religious toleration?...

Atheists, since they are human, fall along a spectrum of tolerance--some attack all opposing viewpoints with great zeal and passion; some attack only the opposing viewpoint(s) which they find particularly extreme; and a minority do manage to remain tolerant and respectful of most other views.

...Must they propagate to survive?...

Humans are wired to believe in purposeful Ultimate Reality, so atheists must expend significant energy combatting the deep archetypes of the human psyche. This energy most often exhibits itself in atheistic prosletyzing--they have to keep themselves convinced by their own continual efforts to convince others that they are right.

[Filthy Tugboat]

...What is the end result of atheism? Is there an end game? A goal? Can it be satisfied, if so how?...

The goal of atheism seems to be that Ultimate Reality does not involve purpose.

Could you expand on this point? I am unaware of the ties between atheism and this proposition.

This is their grand, overarching assumption--and insofar as they are human, they seek to justify their grand assumption and to draw others into their way of thinking.

As far as I'm aware atheism is only the lack of belief in a deity, where is an assumption made, it seems that an assumption is negated and that is all.

...how does atheism fit in the spectrum of religious toleration?...

Atheists, since they are human, fall along a spectrum of tolerance--some attack all opposing viewpoints with great zeal and passion; some attack only the opposing viewpoint(s) which they find particularly extreme; and a minority do manage to remain tolerant and respectful of most other views.

Where do you get the notion of minority v. majority from? Your experiences on a forum and watching debates and such? You do realize that the atheists you see on here, the atheists you see debating and most people that happily tell the public are outspoken and generally when discussing atheism it is in opposition to other religions. So the people you don't see discussing it are largely the ones that aren't openly criticizing or opposing religion. You might not even know that they are atheists but that doesn't mean they are not. It's the same with young earth creationists, they may be a minority but Jesus they are loud and they are often what a lot of people think represents a lot of Christianity which hides the fact that most Christians(most people) don't take them seriously.

...Must they propagate to survive?...

Humans are wired to believe in purposeful Ultimate Reality, so atheists must expend significant energy combatting the deep archetypes of the human psyche.

Care to support the above claims?