Would you say that most atheists do not consider their perspective on religion to be both unique and superior to all others? I've met a few open-minded atheists, but most seem to consider their philosophy to be not even of the same kind, let alone equal to, other religious claims.The problem with the Abrahamic religions especially American Christian Evangelicals is a presumption of absolute uniqueness and superiority.
What straw man? I was interested in people's opinions on the matter. "No" is an acceptable response to the question...Some atheists, like me, disdain post modernism. It is not accurate to say that atheists in general disdain post modernism. Michel Foucault was an atheist, after all. This whole thread is based on an absurd straw man.
Why do you conclude that they are all atheists?Then I think that "No" is the answer. You asked about correlations. It is fairly clear that there is a strong positive correlation between being post-modernist and being atheist. Almost all of the most influential postmodernists are/were atheists, including at least Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, Guattari, Baudrillard, Lyotard Levi-Strauss and Kristeva. But this of course does not work in reverse, most atheists are not post-modernists.
Even if you didn't, you ought to have been more explicit about it.I did not invent the concept of modernism...If that's what you meant, then why didn't you say so in the first place? Like put it in your OP. Don't expect everybody to instantly understand your special meanings of words.I had modernism, not "modernity", in mind -- usually characterized as a 19th-20th century push toward technological advancement, philosophical objectivity, and anti-authoritarian attitudes. A very positivistic outlook that saw great promise in the power of humanism and materialism to remake humanity into a technology-fueled new era of prosperity and general profitability. Self-consciousness, parody, and satire abounded, as well as an almost fetishistic love of, and trust in, science.
Why do you conclude that they are all atheists?
What about Lucretius?
Atheism does not mean disbelieving in God and stopping there. Of there is no God, then we cannot rely on religion as a foundation for morals and ethics. So atheists need to deal with the issue of what are good ethics and morals and how do we deal with these issues. Atheists are under no compulsion to let theology mandate morality or ethics based on ancient books from bronze age billy goat herders.
Would you say that most atheists do not consider their perspective on religion to be both unique and superior to all others? I've met a few open-minded atheists, but most seem to consider their philosophy to be not even of the same kind, let alone equal to, other religious claims.The problem with the Abrahamic religions especially American Christian Evangelicals is a presumption of absolute uniqueness and superiority.
- - - Updated - - -
What straw man? I was interested in people's opinions on the matter. "No" is an acceptable response to the question...Some atheists, like me, disdain post modernism. It is not accurate to say that atheists in general disdain post modernism. Michel Foucault was an atheist, after all. This whole thread is based on an absurd straw man.
I should clarify what I meant. I did not mean anyone in particular, just that it seemed rather improbable that they would all be atheists.Is there somebody in the list who should not be there?Why do you conclude that they are all atheists?
Interesting.Most of them are on Wikipedia's List of Atheist Philosophers. For the rest, it is easily found by few minutes of googling.
But to call atheism a "relic" of that ideology implies that many of the believers in it have either died off or moved away from that. Since many present-day people seem to believe in versions of that ideology, it is unlikely that that has happened.I had modernism, not "modernity", in mind -- usually characterized as a 19th-20th century push toward technological advancement, philosophical objectivity, and anti-authoritarian attitudes. A very positivistic outlook that saw great promise in the power of humanism and materialism to remake humanity into a technology-fueled new era of prosperity and general profitability. Self-consciousness, parody, and satire abounded, as well as an almost fetishistic love of, and trust in, science.
But to call atheism a "relic" of that ideology implies that many of the believers in it have either died off or moved away from that. Since many present-day people seem to believe in versions of that ideology, it is unlikely that that has happened.I had modernism, not "modernity", in mind -- usually characterized as a 19th-20th century push toward technological advancement, philosophical objectivity, and anti-authoritarian attitudes. A very positivistic outlook that saw great promise in the power of humanism and materialism to remake humanity into a technology-fueled new era of prosperity and general profitability. Self-consciousness, parody, and satire abounded, as well as an almost fetishistic love of, and trust in, science.
Relic explicitly means "done and over with, now of only historical interest".I will concede that "relic" was not the best choice of words (it seems to have a pejorative edge that I did not intend) but I am not sure, either, what the right word is for the idea I mean.
Relic explicitly means "done and over with, now of only historical interest".