Religion has always been, and still is, a major worldwide nefarious political force funded by great sums of money, based on superstition and the manipulation of the masses. It has justified heinous crimes through the history of humanity much like many political ideologies of the 20th century. It is encouraging mass killings and obscurantism as we speak.
How can we as atheists, and more globally as free thinkers, oppose such a powerful force today?
Unlike religious fundamentalists we have no political party or any influence as a social movement that would come close to the political religious forces that pressure the world into insanity.
Unlike many fundamentalists groups we are not backed by fundamentalists states and their gargantuan resources.
In America, fundamentalists Christians want to bastardize knowledge by conniving with conservative political forces in order to obtain key political appointments in education and national science research to impose creationism as a legitimate model of thought rather than the superstitious lie that it is.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism)
In many countries, especially occidental, Saudi Arabia and other shariah applying middle-eastern states are funding the most radical, hateful and fanatical branches of Islam to turn an already woman-hating and homophobic religion into a political instrument. The very nexus of these ideas gave birth to their paroxysm, which ISIS/Daesh represents. All execute atheists for "thought crime".
As the 21st century unfolds and religious fundamentalism is on the rise alongside the increasing numbers of atheists worldwide is it not time we, the people who reject superstition in all its forms, unite in one great worldwide movement to slowly rollback and ultimately defeat Religions in the great struggle of ideas?
The Atheist Republic's online activity is already more popular than the american democratic party https://www.facebook.com/democrats/?ref=ts&fref=ts.
Don't worry, I am not suggesting to present a candidate for a presidential election.
But if christian fundamentalists can get nut jobs to key administrative positions then I want Neil deGrasse Tyson or another key anti-creationist figure to replace them as soon as possible.
As for the atheists oppressed in intolerant authoritarian states they deserve a platform on which to express both their views and share their torment. And it is our duty as a community to spread awareness about it.
What do you think fellow thinkers?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Sadly in America we won't get much do until the baby boomer population has died off. Most of them are christian and republican. I doubt an Atheist who is open about it will get elected as a major politician in the next 20 - 30 years.
Do we really need to be openly atheists candidates? Can't we have atheists helping each other as a political community to rise in the ranks and get the right positions as members of the democrat party to counter creationist thought?
Atheists are not represented by any one political ideology. Neil deGrasse Tyson? What is his political philosophy?
That was merely an example of an anti-creationist replacing a creationist within the administration.
It doesn't have to be him specifically but it would make sense.
@willie: How would Tyson vote on other issues? Taxes, military spending?
Vote? I think you are mistaken. I don't want him as a congressman. I want him to replace creationists who sit on the national education board or similar knowledge related institutions.
Also any passionate anti-creationist will do for that job.
An anti-creationist president will have to do the appointing.
Will Rogers once said that there are two things a civilian should never see being made, one is sausage, and the other is laws.( they are not too different). Most scientist types fit the stereotypical "ivory tower" mold, in which they understand clearly what should happen in a perfect world, but fail to understand "how" it happens in this one At this point in time, I would be happy to just see all of the fundamentalists out of government.
I don't see "atheism" as a political force only a fractional factor. I believe if atheists organized as a separate political entity it would be soundly marginalized and do more damage in trying to form a just political system. It would be a target that would galvanize conservative and religious groups giving them more power and control. Also, atheists are not unified by anything other than not believing in a god or gods.
I understand your point and I respect it.
However, I have to point out that refusing to fight an ideology (be it religious or political) simply because it might make its members bolder does nothing to defeat it.
A proper political response through the formation of an active movement, though met with pugnacity by any true political/religious force opposing said response, will counter and curtail the political influence of the fanatics in the long run.
To refuse the democratic fight in the political arena is to let them win.
Why do you all think religious fundamentalism is accomplishing some of its objectives? They ally with other powerful political forces and gain concessions.
I strongly urge atheists, but also believers of both secularism and God, to unite specifically in a political fight against religious fanaticism.
As for atheists being unified by anything other than not believing in a god. Well the religious fanatics are unified by believing in a god.
Anything else about the ideology comes after, through dialogue and ideological construction.
We cannot. Atheism is not a political force
True. Today Atheism isn't a political movement or force.
But what about tomorrow?
Isn't the idea worth discussing?
Even if it were possible, I'm not sure I would want to do so. There are simply far too many sociopolitical stances, held by others who identify as atheist, with which I disagree. And, actually, there are a few theists with whom I agree on many sociopolitical ideals.
I understand your point. However it is up to atheists to combine their willingness to fight against fanatical theism and another political stance.
Leftwing and rightwing political atheism can be created if we so choose.
If I had to guess, I'd say Trump is probably agnostic.
I think some issues do enjoy widespread support among Atheists, including
1. secular models of government,
2. secular candidates,
2. objective analysis of proposed legislation based on demonstrable, scientifically sound research,
3. non-sectarian spending requirements with public funds,
4. law theory focused on concepts of harm and well-being and not on revealed moral concerns like prohibitions on sexual practices,
5. an education system requirement that all educational instruction and source material be based on peer reviewed information,
6. a penal system whose goal is remediation of behavior instead of punitive hostility toward offenders within the legal system, and
7. a social model that recognizes no ordained difference between the role of women and men.
Perhaps by centering our (hopefully) vast numbers on support for and advocacy of shared ideals and goals will be a better use of our collective strength than attempting traditional political party engagement. The US is quickly turning into a theocratic backwater of nativist morons and exploitative cynical plutocrats. We definitely need to engage politically. How best to do so is the question on my mind, too. Thanks for the topic, Willie.
Thank you for bringing up good ideas.
I feel like the discussion needs to be started as many voters in America but also Europa are disappointed by the current political offer and its results.
Atheism is a study in non-commitment.
As an atheist I do not seek the title. I'm just naturally godless and find no measure of who I am by or from it. I dismiss all that opposes it as unworthy of my time. When theists get a hair up their shady sides to post here I'm wholly unmoved by who they think they are, but entertained by their decision to trespass as soldiers of their own imaginations seeking converts.
I also know that there's money in theism. It has been commercialized to such extent that even the taxman begs its forgiveness. That kind of power is not going away any time soon. Ignoring it is the best choice of actions.
I'm afraid that the notion of soldiering for atheism is not to be found in its ranks. A few will attempt to champion it making noise, huffing and puffing out secular citation after citation but that's because there's money in it. I prefer to ignore the lot and keep it casual.
As an atheist, how does this individualist trait bring me to the point where I can fully trust another atheist to "cover my backside" when I really need them?