The theists probably do not agree with us that every thing is subject to change.So they are sticking to the concepts initiated more than a couple of thousand years ago.We can't accept such age old conceptions after tremendous developments in the field of science.So we are going to introduce a new religion,namely 'ATHEISM' which is modified and modernized with the light of science.I would like to put up this proposal in front of the atheists for their consideration.Comment on how does it sound.
1.Name of the religion- Atheism 2.Motto-To perform for the betterment of the humanity.To live happily and peacefully till the end of life as there is no afterlife waiting for us. 3.Target- To save our planet.To make the Earth worth living for all sorts of human beings and all creatures as well. 4.Aim- To rescue the misguided human beings and bring them back to the main stream,i.e.progressive and rational way of life. 5.Activities-To promote proper education,rationalism,free-thinking.To work for blotting out hunger. 6.Priority- Mankind and only mankind 7.Baptized(?)by-Own conscience.8.After death-No funeral,no rites.Body will be donated for research works till requires,otherwise will be burnt to ashes. 9.Hope-It is going to be a religion with the largest number of members. 10.Apprehension-We may have to organize movements against the Governments to get recognition.11. Festivals-
New festivals to be introduced.Emphasis should be given on old ones which are free from any connection with supernatural imagination.12.Members-Free thinkers and rationalists.

Views: 12

Comment by Galen on June 30, 2010 at 3:09pm
See the responses to your other post:
http://www.thinkatheist.com/profiles/blogs/atheism-is-the-best-reli...

Atheism is NOT a religion at all. Not in any manner of speaking. Not in any sense of the word. It is simply NOT. If you think that it is, you are VERY misinformed about what the word means.
Comment by Steve Curless on June 30, 2010 at 6:02pm
It sounds to me like what you're advocating already has a name--humanism. As for whether it's religious or not, it might well qualify under the following dictionary definition: "A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion." In other words, one need not be a theist--i.e., believe in a god--to be religious.

Having said that, I would shy away from calling what you advocate a "religion" because of the close association that most people make between "religion" and "God." Perhaps it would qualify as a kind of spirituality. That is, it reflects the ultimate reality of existence and speaks to the deepest aspects of our own being without invoking a supernatural deity. Yet, I'm not sure it needs to be called either a religion or spiritual path. It seems more like a guiding philosophy of life.
Comment by Christopher McGuire on June 30, 2010 at 6:12pm
You can do whatever you like with your 'religion,' sir. But don't name it 'atheism.' That's taking what we went so far to make acceptable, and throwing it right back in with the stupidity that is religion. You're not gonna get any love here trying to call us a religion. Most of us are here specifically because we broke away from the label known as religion.
Comment by Renshia on June 30, 2010 at 6:58pm
I think you need go back to the drawing board before creating new definitions for words or attaching new labels to them. Why do you need to reinvent the wheel. There are other groups that already embrace those concepts. Your wasting your time polluting concepts already established. check out humanism, the Unitarians. if you just remove mentioning atheism you even getting close to buddhism.
I think we have enough religion corrupting our world, Don't you?

You all ready know what atheism means why would you want to add a bunch of unconnected crap to it. We have enough problems with that happening by other religious nuts

How about calling your new religion Tulshidaisntism and leave the rest of us blissfully unassociated with your new cult. Please.
Comment by Graham E. Lau on July 1, 2010 at 9:39am
I call myself an atheist knowing that atheism is not a religion. If it were considered a religion, I would call myself something else. It's really only a name, but when you start filling it with idealism, tenets, and reliance on organized belief then you loose my interest...
Comment by Steve Curless on July 1, 2010 at 10:33am
Again, I'm not sure that atheism means "no religion." What it literally means is "without theism" or "without god." Can there be non-theistic--i.e. atheistic--religion? Most would say that Buddhism is an atheistic religion in that it does not worship a god. So, I'm not sure that what Tulshidas proposes couldn't qualify as an atheistic religion.

Therefore, it seems to me that if you reject Tulshida's idea, you do so not because it isn't atheism but because it's religion when you want nothing to do with any religion whatsoever, or you disagree with some of the elements of his idea.

For instance, you don't believe in improving humanity, saving the planet, making Earth more accommodating to all life, eradicating hunger, fostering reason and wisdom, and so forth. Or you don't believe in striving for these things as part of some relatively unified organization or movement.

Yet, if you believe in most or all of the principles Tulshidas espouses, who's the say that a widespread religious (or whatever you want to call it) organization or movement wouldn't have a better chance of actualizing these principles than would disorganized individuals acting on their own?
Comment by Christopher McGuire on July 3, 2010 at 2:21am
The problem I have with it is that he proposes to call it 'Atheism.' As in; if you don't believe in eradicating hunger, you're not an atheist. Or if you choose not to donate your body for research, you can't say you follow/believe in atheism. I'm fine with the idea of creating an atheistic religion with improving lives and helping others as the goal, but just don't call it atheism. It would convolute the term. Why anyone would ever want to put restrictions on a term as freeing as 'atheism' is beyond me, but that's beside the point.
Comment by Tulshidas Singha on July 3, 2010 at 6:51am
Do u know any atheist who doesn't want to eradicate hunger? Should anyone be called an atheist who wants his body to be buried in accordance with the funeral rite of the Christians or similar to the last rite of the dead followed by the people of other religion ? I used those symbolically for goodness and rationality.Do U think an organization dealing with human beings can stand without humanism ? Do U think that an Atheist Associations should not have bye-laws,as because it may destroy freeness? Should the members be allowed whatever they wish to do?
Comment by Galen on July 3, 2010 at 8:21am
Again, you're trying to make it sound like there's a such thing as "atheist beliefs." There is NOT. The one and ONLY "atheist belief" is that there is no god or gods. That's ALL. There is no dogma, because it ISN'T a religion or a set of beliefs. Atheism is the LACK of such things!
Comment by Tulshidas Singha on July 3, 2010 at 10:19am
Yes sir,there is no such thing,so I chose the word 'introduction'.If the one and only meaning of Atheism is disbelief in God, then what do U want to mean saying "Lack of such things"?Theists believe that God exists and Atheists believe that God doesn't exist.A theist may behave rationally in other sphere of day to day life,an atheist believes only in rationality.

Comment

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

Join Think Atheist

Blog Posts

My Dad and the Communist Spies

Posted by Brad Snowder on August 20, 2014 at 2:39pm 0 Comments

Breaking Free

Posted by A. T. Heist on August 20, 2014 at 9:56am 4 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service