Would atheism fare better if it had a new fancy name?

[Helm]

You could call it "Enlightenmentarianism" it sounds a little more positive and its historically revelant. It could also cover deists, humanists, agnostics and people who are "spiritual" but don't believe in supernatural forces and such.

[Tuor]

The thread title implies that atheism isn't faring well.

[SLN445]

^

Pluss i doubt a name change would change peoples views.

[Portuguese Rebel]

Atheism is just a word that has a very specific meaning. Atheists, besides being such are many more other things. Atheism doesn't define us as a person. For most of us it is only part of our humanism that reflects itself in aiming for a better world without the need of a juju of the mountain to motivate us to do good. And atheism hardly could be faring better. It is a very fast growing tendency, which is really amazing, when we consider the hostile environment in which most atheist grow up.

[(s)AINT]

No. While we are not the fastest growing minority, the people who describe themselves as having no particular religion are the fastest growing minority in the world.

A lot of those people could easily call themselves atheists but do not.

[Their Law]

You could call it "Enlightenmentarianism" it sounds a little more positive and its historically revelant.

How is atheism not historically relevant. It's the correct term for the concept.

It could also cover deists,

Athiesm by definition cannot cover diests and vice versa.

humanists

Is a philosaphy rather than a statement on your position on the existence of a God(s).

agnostics

Agnostism is not a separate group in the same style of say atheism and theism, you can be an agnostic atheist or theist depending on your view. Agnosticism is a position on whether one can 'know' the answer to the existence of god(s).

and people who are "spiritual" but don't believe in supernatural forces and such.

No opinion here, you can believe in the supernatural and technically be an atheist, but often the acceptance of the supernatural as a concept means you have very little ground not to believe in a deity as both require roughly the same criteria of belief.

[Ancient Aliens]

This may just be the most inane topic to ever take place in the EMM...

[Pious Agnost]

How is atheism not historically relevant. It's the correct term for the concept.



Athiesm by definition cannot cover diests and vice versa.



Is a philosaphy rather than a statement on your position on the existence of a God(s).



Agnostism is not a separate group in the same style of say atheism and theism, you can be an agnostic atheist or theist depending on your view. Agnosticism is a position on whether one can 'know' the answer to the existence of god(s).




No opinion here, you can believe in the supernatural and technically be an atheist, but often the acceptance of the supernatural as a concept means you have very little ground not to believe in a deity as both require roughly the same criteria of belief.

Nailed it

[The Million Dollar Prons]

This thread is now about Pronsism.

[Basil II the B.S]

You could call it "Enlightenmentarianism" it sounds a little more positive and its historically revelant. It could also cover deists, humanists, agnostics and people who are "spiritual" but don't believe in supernatural forces and such.

Too long. Plus agnostics, deists and atheists would rather distinguish themselves.

[Pontifex Maximus]

I would prefer not to have to call myself anything and have the whole religion thing take a backseat to more important topics like the price of tea in China.

[Ancient Aliens]

I would prefer not to have to call myself anything and have the whole religion thing take a backseat to more important topics like the price of tea in China.

Judging by the nature of the arguments that normally take place in the EMM, I would say that this, sadly, is extremely wishful thinking, at least in our lifetimes. Besides (as was pointed out by South Park), it's human nature to coalesce and disagree; to faction and fraction. If religion were to end we would probably be having heated debates on other mundane topics, such as the price of tea in China.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Judging by the nature of the arguments that normally take place in the EMM, I would say that this, sadly, is extremely wishful thinking, at least in our lifetimes. Besides (as was pointed out by South Park), it's human nature to coalesce and disagree; to faction and fraction. If religion were to end we would probably be having heated debates on other mundane topics, such as the price of tea in China.

Once again the eternal wisdom of South Park rings true

[Exarch]

'that which we call a rose, by another name would smell as sweet'
-shakespeare's 'romeo and juliet'

it wouldn't matter what it's called, a christian society would deem unbelief as a threat

[The Dude]

You could call it "Enlightenmentarianism" it sounds a little more positive and its historically revelant. It could also cover deists, humanists, agnostics and people who are "spiritual" but don't believe in supernatural forces and such.

It would also sound like a load of .

[Helm]

This guy with a beard will explain the main problem with atheism as a "belief" though it isn't a belief of course.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

In Warhammer 40K they called it "The Doctrine of Imperial Truth" and that proved popular. Before the Lectitio Divinitatus postulated the worship of the Emperor as a divine being, but that's human nature for you.

"The contents of this belief involved the removal of religion, faith and superstition that plagued numerous Human worlds that had been recontacted by Terra. Instead, the Imperial Truth was offered by Iterators that provided the cold clarity of logic and science to the masses."


So what you need is some kind of a new name and some "doctrine". Such a doctrine could include on the origins of the universe (naturally occurring thtough an evolutionary principal), where you go when you die (its not expected that anyone can exist without a brain) and so on. You will have to leave it open to be changed in the future when more knowledge of the universe is gained. It will also cover practical stuff regarding the nature of morality, how best to live within a society and relate to others, who don't share your beliefs, a general guide on how to live well as an individual, how best to be to be happy and deal with adversity without God and so on. There is quite a bit you can do with this. You could get all the best known atheists, secularists and scientists to come together and bash something out.

[Jack04]

No.

[basics]

The question offers up the fact that atheism has problems and it is not religiosity that is to blame for that, why? Because if there were no religions and all were atheist, human nature would always intrude into what they would deem as their paradise.

Man's nature is such that the always look over your shoulder and keep your enemies closest would more than replace the benign work of religion. I don't think that it takes much to gather this from the recent history of communism and its proponents or leaders.

So, watch out what you wish for.

[Helm]

The question offers up the fact that atheism has problems and it is not religiosity that is to blame for that, why? Because if there were no religions and all were atheist, human nature would always intrude into what they would deem as their paradise.

Man's nature is such that the always look over your shoulder and keep your enemies closest would more than replace the benign work of religion. I don't think that it takes much to gather this from the recent history of communism and its proponents or leaders.

So, watch out what you wish for.

The "Doctine of Universal Truth" or whatever you want to call it would cover all of these things of course. It would only cover what we know of the universe and the human condition for certain and the best way of going about dealing with that without any supernatural elements.

[basics]

" The "Doctine of Universal Truth" or whatever you want to call it would cover all of these things of course. It would only cover what we know of the universe and the human condition for certain and the best way of going about dealing with that without any supernatural elements. "

Helm,

I fear that nature doesn't know this Doctrine of Universal Truth because in the great Doctrine of Universal Evolution the fittest will always survive, the cream rising to the top. The cream of course those men and women who wil stop at nothing to get where they want to go. That is nature without religion.