Wild "Community" of Non-Theists: Do Atheists Need a High Priest (Dawkins, Stenger, Harris, Hitchens)?

Since it seems as timely as it did a few months ago, I'm reposting this breakdown of Atheists.
What think ye, freethinkers?

I've been thinking about the many different kinds of freethinkers/atheists/non-theists I run into. Here is my breakdown of the sectarians in the naturalistic "community." I hope this starts a healthy, productive, creative discussion!

A: Angry, aggressive and obsessed with anything anti (a, a, a, non, un. . .)
T: Thoughtful, thinkers and tend toward positive conversations and mutual learning
H: Humanistic; community-centered; socially conscious and good-hearted
E: Ethically directed; activist orientation
I: Inquisitive; investigative; open to the questions without firm, defended answers
S: Spiritually sensitive; use the "soul" and "spirit" words alot
T: Theologically trained; former religious leaders
S: Scientific-focus; skeptical; incisive and theoretical

And, sauntering over, around and through all these congregates are the Naturalists, Freethinkers and no-particular-bone-to-pick and let's-figure-out-how-to-work-together kinds of people

Views: 70


You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by D R Hosie on June 7, 2010 at 12:51am
A rather neat grouping of representative categories, that should probably be converted to a poster / chart (for sale?). I'm thinking you would probably have to pick at least 2 or 3 top categories (by numerical order) to be able to express a fairly accurate personality profile of anyone you might want to "put up against the chart." It's a very clever idea.
Comment by Marshall on October 30, 2009 at 5:26pm
I do agree that the title of this blog post has nothing to do with the content. That said, I did enjoy the content.
Comment by George on October 30, 2009 at 1:47am
The post is interesting, but I have no idea what the headline has to do with it.

"High priest" is the wrong conceptual frame. Groups and cultures naturally are going to have influential people, leaders, coordinators, and the like. Presumably groups of atheists will tend to choose those people they look up to for guidance, or choose no one at all. It's an open market of ideas and interrelationships.
Comment by Johnny on October 29, 2009 at 10:07pm
agreed sith thinks4herself. How would we choose one?

We pride ourselves on our ability to pursue knowledge for ourselves and reach our own conclusions. A community of atheists should ideally be a "Round table" idea where the head should only be there to facilitate discussion while others bring their own areas of expertise.

If one is ultimately acknowledged as the "High priest" or "King" it makes his word more unquestionable and turns atheism effectively into a pseudo-religion.

Heros are fine, but high priests I would fight against vehemently
Comment by Chris Highland on October 29, 2009 at 8:57pm
An observation on "community" relates to a great deal of my thought and work.
Comment by Marshall on October 29, 2009 at 8:36pm
Fortunately I'm not aware of anyone proposing the establishment of a non-theist "High Priest". I don't think that there is anything wrong with holding individuals in esteme for their acomplishments, but I think it would be nerely impossible for us to come to an agreement as to who "represents" us. Dawkins, when speaking in public, represents himself; it just so happens that I normally agree with him.



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service