Agnostic.com

20 1

Would It Be A Good Thing Or A Bad Thing For Non Believers To Have A Leader(s)?

Believers have Religious leaders such as The Pope who heads the Catholic Church.

What if Non Believers had a Leader.
Would this be a good idea or a bad one and please explain why.

View Results
twshield 8 Jan 22

Post a comment Reply Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

20 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

Yes, and I nominate Christopher Hitchens in posthumous absentia as my leader. Anyone else?

Lol that's a start

If we were looking for a "face" for a movement I would recommend Neil Tyson. He knows everything that was, is, or will be. He is a little soft edged, though a scientist must pay homage to the laws of probability, and hedge his bet by saying his is sure there is no god except for .99995%, and I don't think he would take the job, talking something about having to run a planetarium, or something like that.

1

My vision of such a leader, would not be like a preacher or Guru, but instead someone that keeps our attention from running off the rails. Cover one subject matter at the time!

1

Do you mean "leaders," or mentors? We all need mentors.

no not mentors because we don't need that but someone or a group who represents the right to be non believers

1

None of the above. Reason(s)? First, there is no reason or purpose to organize freethinkers. It would be contrary to the description. We all do our part (I hope we 'all' do) in trying to select the leaders of our society whenever presented the opportunity. Not voting is not an option.

Look at what despot leadership has done for the Catholic church. It's the most hierarchical, rich, and cruel religion there is. Not even Islam has the body-count that it has. If you believe in a whatever, you don't need a leader taking you around by the nose. Free thinkers should come together or go their ways as they feel, like community shoppers. Conventions are fun for sharing and learning. Random organizers is all that's needed.

1

And a congressional lobby.

Gary Level 4 Jan 22, 2018

great comment. i guess it comes with the territory

0

What would this person be leading? People who don't believe in one thing may not have anything else in common.

Religious groups have leaders because that leader interprets the word of god to tell the sheep what they must believe which informs how they vote.

Non-believers have no central authority to follow and will choose their own paths in life and in their positions on social, political, and financial matters. The leader of a group like this had better be damn good at herding cats, because that would be a very stressful, frustrating, thankless task.

I'd like to think we all believe in the separation of church and state.

@Gary

I would like to this so too which is why we have organizations dedicated to that goal.
Freedom from Religion Foundation [ffrf.org]

However, that is not strictly a nonbeliever goal, there are many religious people who are just as interested in keeping religion out of government.

1

I believe hierarchy is a myth and we don’t actually need a leader. If most people follow guidelines of treating others decently, have what they need to live, and can live in harmony with themselves and others, why would we need to be led? I know I’m a dreamer, but I believe it’s possible for people to do the right thing collectively, without one person telling them how to do it.

0

There are many leaders of Atheistic thought. Not sure what you are looking for - A Cult of Personality? I would think that would do more harm than good.

Separation of church and state.

certainly not cult. When Obama signed the HR15 bill to include Atheist in freedom of religion, we still have no proper representation.

Cult of Personality isn't the same as a cult. check out FFRF.org - Secularism is ingrained into the Constitution itself.
I still do not understand what you mean by 'proper representation'

Okay, upon a reread of the posts below Ill edit this without deleting, I do understand you are referring to more of a 'personality' than a actual position. We do have people working very hard to make our voices heard - I'll mention FFRF once more, groups like these have attorneys (good ones) working to help keep some of the theocrats in check.

0

our leader is nature

There are places and people in this country who are pushing for state religion. Watch out and protect our Constitution.

1

We've got a few already but we need a tv show... that might do it.

Big Bang Theory!! Some of Sheldon's comments about his mother (a fundamentalist) are spot on and hilarious to boot.

@RobCampbell. Well alrighty... I'll check it out.

2

I really don't think a leader is needed or desirable, not for me any way. I am jaded perhaps by the corruption and tyranny that I see and have seen. I am sure that some are actual servants of the people......I think maybe I choose what who leads me at each moment, there are many leaders, I owe no loyalty to any of them.

1

I agree with many comments below, we already have leaders, like the makers of this site as said below, however I would agree that we deserve a representative in government. We are not religious, so separation of church and state would not apply I’d think.

4

Why would non-believers 'need' a leader? We seem pretty capable of knowing our own minds already. Why would we need to be led? And to where?

i would like for there to be non believer leaders in our government so we can properly be represented

@twshield I'm all for non-believers holding public office. However, I really don't want to see any kind of "movement", or organized situation, where one person claims to speak for all non-believers. In that case, atheists would be as bad as the catholic church. Nobody needs that.

@KKGator if people are content with living in the shadows of a world that is based on religion its their choice, however i see nothing wrong with having a representative(s) to help ensure our right to be non believers and educate the public about what non belief is.

@twshield Like I said, I definitely think more non-believers need to start running for elected office. However, I'm certainly not "content with living in the shadows". I'm right out there in plain sight. Secure in my non-belief and perfectly capable and willing to defend my right to be, regardless of what the believers might have to say about it. What we need are more of us to be open about who we are and what we believe. Our right to be non-believers isn't in jeopardy. As long as the Constitution is the law of the land, legally, we can NOT believe anything. Yes, the public needs more education about what non-belief is, but we just need more of us speaking up. We can be our own representatives. Where do you think these "representatives" are going to come from, if not us?

@KKGator well said!

@KKGator That's the point. Put a face to us. Having a face out there might make it easier to be open about what we are.

3

Why? There are plenty of prominent spokespeople out there, many named below, who do a fine job right now of representing the atheist pov to the world. Why set someone up as paramount in the community; or as a potential target for some fundamentalist fascist nutjob? I think we're doing OK as we are with the widespread diffusion of mass media, especially social media, youtube, etc. Why single out one individual and make us look like a "movement"? That way you just give the haters and detractors someone to focus on.

3

Didn't needed one to remove god off my circle. That is my final answer.

1

Why a leader would a council be better to consult?

I did put a leader(s) in my post so it can be more than one 🙂

@twshield Was thinking more like top scientist they really do not like to lead, they are better at collective solving problems.

@azzow2 good idea!

2

I think leaders already exist, such as the wonderful person who created this site, and also that guy in the youtube clip I watched the other day, Sam Harris (thanks @WizardBill ). He is a leader.

I think that some leadership is needed in this time as we are fighting for truth and justice in the Agnostic/Atheist way. One day when we are a vast majority (I said WHEN) then this leadership will diminish as its no longer needed 🙂

4

Wouldn't a leader kind of go against the idea of being a "free thinker"? I think having representatives would be ok and we already kind of have some already. They don't lead us, but they're well known, in the public eye, and essentially serve as our voice to the public. People like Bill Nye, Richard Dawkins, and Neil deGrasse Tyson are good examples.

good point but the reason I pose this question is because we have absolutely NO representation in government. This country says "One nation under God" so are we suppose to exist like this without a voice forever?

twshield you need to check out FFRF.org

Amen. Representatives, but not a leader. And the "under god" part is not in the Constitution as fanatics want. All they said was about following our better natures.

4

We already do. They are the outspoken atheist like Dave Silverman and Christopher Hitchens (Darwin rest his soul) lol...
There are great leaders of the secular humanist movement. Dawkins, Humphreys, Carrier, Harris, Dennett. Penn, Randi, Amon Ra, Seth Andrews just to name a few!

We should start a thread, name four leading atheist without using one that is already named and see how far it goes.

@Wafflestomp all you have mentioned are Non Believers but not actual Leaders for our beliefs.

@twshield You characterize religious leaders as such "Believers have Religious leaders such as The Pope who heads the Catholic church."
Bill Nye and Niel DeGrasse Tyson are as public as one can get. Carl Sagan had an audience that made church preachers downright envious. Douglas Murray could easily become the next Hitchens. Dave Silverman heads the largest Atheist organization in the free world to which Bill Maher and Seth Macfarlane are very much involved. As far as Atheism, that's about the very best we can hope for until the religiously indoctrinated stop their bigoted assault on atheist. Unlike religious believers we don't really need figureheads to tell us how to think, that's why we're Atheists!

@Wafflestomp you guys are over thinking a simple question. we are non believers in a world dominated by believers and we have no one or group that speak for our rights as non believers.

@twshield We as a collective are not overthinking this thing. The religious are the gatekeepers and they hold all the keys. They are in the highest elected offices and make the laws. We are far and few in between. There are agnostic/atheists in public office but they are stifled and made to keep quiet. Even the nonreligious would rather vote for any religious person other than an atheist. Atheists have been compared to the worst people in history and preacher spread this in league with satan narrative to the point of ad nauseum. Bernie Sanders was the closest an atheist will ever see in high public office until the stigma that the indoctrinated place upon atheist has stopped. We don't overthink it we just got tired of thinking about it!

@Proslice56 i get what you are saying and i agree but we still need representation and i don't mean celebrity

@Wafflestomp What's wrong with having a leader?

@twshield This country will not openly vote for an atheist which presents the problem. I feel your frustration. The biggest problem with running for elected office as far as an undeclared atheist is concerned is having to hide within the unspoken words of their belief or nonbelief.

@Proslice56 I agree. Just wish we could change that

1

Too many points of view to come under one leader. Multiple leaders for multiple movements.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:17423
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.