Agnostic.com

15 3

As increasing numbers of US citizens self-identify as "without religion" in both red and blue states, when will they become politically organized and who will lead them????

By Honolulu20463
Actions Follow Post Like

Post a comment Add Source 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

15 comments

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

0

Secular Coalition for America is trying hard!

0

Aron Ra

0

I follow no one. I am an independent person. I will make up my own mind. I don't need someone to tell me how to think or act. And being organized implies the need of people to be part of a herd or flock or whatever. I will vote based upon my own ability.

xyz123 Level 7 Apr 14, 2019
1

No they will not, as they are spread across political perspectives from the extreme right to the extreme left.

wordywalt Level 8 Apr 14, 2019
0

Within our binary system … there’s only one choice left. But as the other side continues to use religion as a rallying cry or purity test, those on the other side continue to dance around the issue..

Varn Level 8 Apr 14, 2019
0

PZ Myers makes an eloquent case for why he believes atheism should be a social democratic movement and a lot more than just the absence of god. However he also recognises that this isn’t likely to happen while the political spectrum includes folks like me and the libertarians, or the folks who think they’re liberal but hate immigrants.

There is very little political consensus to be had there.

0

increased number is primarily because of parents. No need to form anything of a kind to waste time. What’s enough is not to oppress. Turkey maybe Muslim country, but doesn’t oppress atheism so secularism grows there too. Same in Lebanon

1

Browse this site a bit and you'll see why. I've had a few heated debates here on a wide range of political and philosophical topics. Thankfully, these were all friendly disagreements. But people uniting to form a political party just because we're agnostic/atheist is like every bald person uniting just because they have no hair.

Buxx Level 7 Apr 14, 2019
0

You cannot define a group by what they are not - religious - and then try to treat them as if they were a contiguous body. It is in fact a fallacy to think of them as a coherent group at all, since the only commonality they share is a lack of one characteristic.

Denker Level 7 Apr 14, 2019
0

And a point I missed.

You do NOT need religion to be moral! Religion does NOT define what is right and what is wrong.

0

Firstly, the founders laid down, in writing, that there should be a separation between church and state.
Secondly, any person of intellect will cringe about having any person of religion in control of a potential nuklear strike.
Lastly, when "god" is mentioned, who's god?

0

This tipping point idea doesn't really exist, does it? Most politically inclined people without a specific faith will simply continue join an existing structure, eg. Democrats or possibly Greens, regardless of their faith or lack of it. Nothing about being an atheist (and most nons/nones are not) precludes traditional politics. In most other modern countries this is obvious, I suppose it's harder to see in the US currently due to polarization and disaffection.

Allamanda Level 8 Apr 14, 2019
0

1.) That doesn't mean what too many want it to mean. All that means is that the nons (ie: non-affiliated) didn't choose a sect on the Census form. It does not mean non-relgious. Non-religious is "none" which, didn't even make it to it's own line item for 2017 or 18.
2.) The nons congregate/organize in their church of choice, or maybe they don't.
3.) Those of us that are nones don't organize in the traditional sense. This site, a convention maybe. There's no real reason to organize.

2

Maybe they do not NEED a leader, they are their own source of power.

THHA Level 7 Apr 14, 2019

that'd be awfully wonderful

0

I have no desire to have atheists become politically organized, and I can't think of anyone who is qualified to lead.

KKGator Level 9 Apr 14, 2019

lucky since it'd be herding cats.

@Allamanda A short while ago, maybe a week or so, someone asked if atheists considered Bill Maher to be the "leader of the atheists".
I said that it wasn't likely, and if pressed, Maher would say "get the fuck outta here with that shit".
Given the garbage we have "governing" us now, I'm leaning toward anarchy as being a better way to go.

@KKGator I suppose it depends what your aims are? certainly advocating anarchy isn't going to accomplish anything useful to society as we know it, but then neither is any form of organization of atheists I can think of.

@Allamanda You beat me to the phrase.

@Allamanda I have little interest in accomplishing anything useful to society.
I have little use for society. I think most of society sucks.

@KKGator I suppose I'm the opposite, I think we each have a responsibility to society in proportion to our gifts and advantages. Mine have been many, so I take it very seriously.

@Allamanda You do you. I wouldn't dream of telling you, or really anyone else, how to live their lives, or what to think is important.
I admit to a certain level of misanthropy. I generally do not like people very much. I often think the planet would be better off if humans were gone from it.

@KKGator I'm sorry if I gave the impression of being critical, it wsn't meant that way, just that different viewpoints may lead to different conclusions. I don't like people much en masse either, that doesn't, as I see it, diminish MY responsibsibility.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text 'q:330608'.
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content read full disclaimer.
  • Agnostic.com is a non-profit community for atheists, agnostics, humanists, freethinkers, skeptics and others!