This reminds me of the South Park Special "Go God Go" in which the atheists in the future is at war with each other over what name atheist should call themselves
I’d like to note that “Ajita Kesakambali” (born between 600-500 BCE) would be the first known atheist in human history,. And “Lokāyata” was the first educational Institute to teach atheism.
To make it clear: A very very small minority are actually members of these organisations. Most os us aren't actively "atheist", we simply are not religious.
Exactly. Most of the organizations listed in the video consisted of a handful of people who were explicitly not trying to create something akin to a religious movement. Even the the larger groups mentioned in this video max out in the tens of thousands, compared to actual religions which consist of millions and millions. Treating those two as analogous, even despite all their other differences, is very bizarre to me. This video comes across as misleading.
He has successfully tricked you into thinking that atheists are religious about their beliefs and therefore distance yourself from its usage. Note that what atheists believe can change (except the fact that the Abrahamic God does not exist). A born again Jew will not. Classic you are no better than us begrudging acknowledgement.
@@Yordleton these organization are important though, because since we live in a world that is clearly not secular, people that don't hold a religious beliefs needs to be protected, and they are the ones putting their foot down to defend secularism against religious groups and leaders.
Two comments based on the objections I'm seeing so far: 1. "But most atheists don't belong to one of these organizations". True, but keep in mind that many Christians don't go to church either. The parallel is not perfect but like I said at the beginning, this video is a bit tongue and cheek. Also, thinkers associated with these atheist organizations have had a tremendous impact on atheist "culture". The average atheist often relies on certain phrases and arguments that can in fact be traced back to individuals associated with one or more of these organizations. 2. "It's simply not fair to talk about atheists using religious terminology." Well, the thing is: Religion is a horrible term all around. And almost every religious group has at one time or another said, "We're not really a religion but rather a ___" or "But our group stands out as unique because ___". So, in this sense, ironically, not wanting to be lumped together with religions makes atheism kinda like a religion! 3. "This video is Anglo-centric". Yeah, sorry about that. For this episode, because of time constraints, I had to limit myself somehow. I went with US/UK organizations because that represents the largest chunk of my viewership.
No! You have fans from all over. Btw it seems there's a new crop of atheists post "New Atheists" who are more chill. And I recomend Nick Spencer's book "Atheists - The Origin of the Species" to anyone who want to go deeper, past organizations and into history, philosophy. And about state-atheism in the Soviet Union, eastern Europe China. But that's 298 pages, not a graph and a 25 min video. This was great for what it is. Love fr Malmö, Sweden
Dr. Baker, as an atheist and Humanist Celebrant, there are about 20,000 nitpicks I could write in this comment section, but I'll limit it to a single one that hit me most strongly. In my local American Humanist Association chapter (of which I am a board member), we have religious folks. They believe in their gods, but they dont rely on the gods to make the world better. We even have Christian members! At any rate, it's wonder that you took this on, and I'm glad to see these conversations taking place. I love your work and i have 4 of your charts on my wall, and I'll have a couple more later this year. My wife already knows what i want for my birthday! Bible & History charts from Usefulcharts!!!
I appreciate you pointing this out. As an atheist, I have been able to find common ground with humanist of the theistic variety. They exist and can be Christian, Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Pagan, etc. If that was missed I now wonder about Dr. Baker's point on testing atheists for humanist values. You could probably find people all over the religious spectrum who will agree with some aspect of humanism. This is a result of a relatively progressive, liberal, or democratic society.
@@violetsonja5938 about the only disagreements you would expect to find between average christians and average humanists concern the existence or otherwise of a god. Most of the generic remainder is pretty easy to agree with, like being nice to people and helping the less fortunate. The problems start to arise when the belief in that god starts to inform other aspects of the public realm, like what books should be banned, or who has control over your bodily autonomy.
Regarding the Christians, that which I am, I think that the humanist view is right to a certain extent. My view, which I think I can speak for all Christians on this one, is that God has given us this earth, or made us the stewards of this earth, and thus we should protect and preserve it. Yes, for the betterment of humans, but because God has assigned humans over all His creation. Hope this helps in any way
I have very similar feedback regarding agnostic, as I consider myself an agnostic theist. Agnosticism is a discussion on whether or not we can know something. But God, by definition, exists outside our observable universe, so it's not possible to «know». One can only «believe», thus leading to «faith». The big thing I like to point out here, is that, for the same reasons, agnostic atheists also must have «faith» in the non-existence of God. It's a faith-based position either way, because we cannot ever know the true answer. At least not in this existence.
@@jdmichal A few questions: 1. How do you KNOW a god exists outside the observable universe? There are theists who disagree. It doesn't seem fair to them to assume a god cannot exist in the universe as a default. 2. I am an agnostic atheist. I do not assert that a god cannot exist, I am unconvinced that one exists. I both don't know if a god exists or if it can be known (since there are a lot of concepts of gods including some I have not yet encountered) and don't have faith that a god does or does not exist. What other word would you have for that position?
@@bhatkat The old ones do not actually believe in it but enjoy the lampooning very much. The danger is... let me put it this way: There is guy i know (the guy is not me) that happend to be a member and left, he is a father and used to bring his kids to the events and they enjoyed it very much but for them it was real, like REAL REAL ... just like kids that get taken to church on the regular. Kids cant process the whole thing and he was concerned that it could lead to Pastfari-taliban in the worst case. So he put the noodle strainer back in the kitchen. Considering how litte time it took for christanity from the first sprouts to the destruction of the antiquity by overzealous believers its not far fetched.
@@bhatkat I'm a believer. I believer that there is no god. I believe that Trump does not look like Elvis Presley. I believe that Putin is a murderous thug. Etc.
Nihilism isn't a "denomination" of atheism. Nihilism is a philosophical view which anyone could have, including religious people. And nihilists are those who accept the notion that life is meaningless and cruel. And some even have different responses to nihilism. Absurdist would accept nihilism in an enthusiastic way or couldn't care less about it (like me) Existentialist would also accept but still somehow belief everyone have their own meaning that they can set forth (i.e optimistic nihilist) Pessimistic Nihilist (True Nihilism) those who accept nihilism and seek it's goal which is total destruction
@@PolitictalDipsit same applies to many of the other supposed "denominations". Either accept the premise or dont, your choice, it doesnt matter anyways :^)
@@PolitictalDipsit existentialists dont agree with nihilism, they think meaning truly does exist its just subjective, nihilists believe there is no meaning at all, optimistic nihilism is pretty much absurdism but the major difference is that absurdism doesnt believe in human reason as the determining factor for how we find meaning, it argues that the world is just absurd so us trying to use human reason is useless, so we should just rebel. Its not a very convincing argument, as its whole justification is rooted in that, "the world is absurd" but it doesn't really explain how its absurd in a way that means we cant use human reason to deduct value
It's sound very strange to me (a continental european) that the socialist (marxian-leninist in particular) tradition is not cited, since it is an important reason for the diffusion of atheism in eastern bloc and continental europe
For East Asian (Taiwanese), the word "Atheist" is so hard to understand in our social context. For us the question of "Are you an Atheist?" is just like "Are you superstition". Calling people believing in Feng shui atheist is just very weird to us. And to us, we usually ask whether a God is "useful" not caring whether it "exists or not". Religion is viewed in a very practical standpoint.
People who believe in Feng Shui cannot be atheists. Indeed, didn't it derive from Daoism? In any event it is a form of mysticism. This guy, here, ("Useful Charts"), is attempting to classify "atheist" by their social associations. For example, Satanists are clearly not atheists.
@@retiredbore378 well, it's a fact western thought dominates the whole world, so it's easy for westerners to think that goes for every aspect of life (which it obviously doesn't) But yes, they wear our clothes, use our tech, eat our food, play our music, etc etc much more than the other way around. You see a Tokio orchestra play Beethoven, Chinese wear Levis, Egyptians play football and South Africans eat Kentucky Fried Chicken (there are 30 KFC's in Johannesburg) You don't see people in Paris or Berlin wear traditional kimonos or play the Dutar (traditional string instrument of central Asia)
Do you hold beliefs about anything., or is everything a matter of pragmatism? If you do hold beliefs, do you care whether those beliefs are true? Can an untrue belief actually be useful? It could help you reach a decision, but does it help you make better decisions?
@@PeerAdder The most commom dialogue in Taiwanese society on religion is "Is THIS god effective?" and it is exactly the same question we will ask when it comes to medicine "Is this medicine effective?" So the trust in gods (or other supersious practice) is very pragmatic. We also don't need to believe in a lot of doctrine when we are worthshiping (or asking for gods help.) Like medicine, no one will debate whether it "exist" or whether is is "true". The only important thing is whether you belive the medicine will be effective on yourself. So for our society the moral code or what belief we hold mainly come from family, education, cultural tradition. Generally speaking it does not come from GOD (religion).
Quick correction: the word « secular » is actually much, much older, as it can be found as early as the 13th century, with more or less the same meaning.
It was interesting learning about these groups, but as a non-religious person, I've not heard of any of them. To me the whole point of being atheist/agnostic/humanist/freethinking is that you don't follow a single book or manifesto, and you don't have to meet up with other atheists every weekend.
Don't have to, but we humans are social creatures. Hence, established communities; also every "branch" organization on this chart have there own mandates. - FFRF is more of a legal org, representing non-religious or religious pluralism - The Satanist movement is more like the grass-roots "anarchist" protest banner when religion(s) decide to encroach on other people's rights. - International Atheist/Humanist Orgs and the CFI are UN umbrella organizations.
Yep, that's pretty much how I feel about it. I can't help but feel so many of these social media crusades by "leading atheists" usually turn out to be veiled publicity for whatever book, course, video or club they're hoping to make money from.
The thing is, unless you happen to be a philosophical and ethical savant, you aren’t probably inventing entirely new ideas about how things work or what life means. And you can’t escape the cascade of influences and ideas which have eventually lead to what you’ve been exposed to. Which means you will inadvertently fall into one of several possible general categories, with some exceptions and variants of course. Deciding not to follow what you think is an organized following doesn’t mean you don’t actually fall into a group.
To be fair most of these organizations aren’t that type of organization. Most are advocacy, educational, or charity groups. My local humanist organization meets a couple times a month to do anything from community service and charity efforts, to having an expert speaker talk about a contemporary issue, to simply having a lunch together. While they do affirm aspects of the various manifestos, it isn’t dogma, it’s more like advertising. If you’re the type of person who agrees with those things you might enjoy that group of people and what they’re about.
@@MossyMozart I'm not sure what you are trying to say, but I'm addressing the fact that this video coming out on this channel is not that surprising, because the creator has often talked about this topic in many other videos and also did his entire doctoral thesis on it.
07:46 It's "Origin of Species" (plural species), not "Origin of the Species". The plural helps to reinforce the point that our origin is shared with the other species with whom we share common ancestry (i.e., all of them).
I'm not sure that Number was the category that was confused here: "The species" can also be plural. Rather it was whether or not there should be a definite article before a definite noun, which is honestly a bit confusing in English for a non-native speaker such as myself, but you *can* have a definite noun such as "nature" or "species" as in this case, which don't need articles and are almost treated like proper nouns. Kind of the same way that "God" works, even though that has fully shifted to a name. In Danish, we call the book "Arternes oprindelse", lit. "The species' origin" as we cannot have a definite noun without a definite marker.
@@rasmusn.e.m1064Origin of Species basically means "how new species originate" while Origin of the Species implies a particular species, widely interpreted by anti-evolutionists and others as "how humans originated", a much more emotionally charged issue. Darwin intended the former meaning.
@@b.a.erlebacher1139 I honestly didn't know that that was a widely held misconception. I suppose that is why you folks would react the way you did to that, but I was just saying that 'the species' doesn't have to imply a singular species. It could literally (as it does in most languages that have a definite/indefinite distinction) just refer to all species, ie. 'the species (of the earth), whereas 'the origin of species' could also imply that the scope is only some species and not all of them because it looks like an indefinite plural. I suppose that is a conventional implicature that is peculiar to English speakers and one I'll have to learn to live with.
@@rasmusn.e.m1064 In terms of ambiguity, "the species" can be singular ("one particular species") or plural ("all the species that exist"), while without the indefinite article it tends to imply an indefinite plural ("some species" rather than "a species" -- singular would require the latter). In terms of popular misconceptions -- here in the US there have for decades been people insisting (and spreading the misinformation) that Darwin's most famous book was devoted entirely to claiming human descent from apes (and no, not saying "having a common ancestor with" isn't a misrepresentation of the creationist/anti-"Darwinist" faction here -- they still insist that evolution by natural selection actually means one currently-existing species being the ancestor of another).
I like the explanation. Learned a lot. As a Christian I'm open /interested in how other ideologies are formed, especially the ones that oppose my own. If I know how someone else thinks I can understand them, not to convince someone or let me be convinced but to understand and habe a proper dialogue (a real one).
Honestly as an atheist I respect the hell out of that. It's all too easy to make assumptions about religious people based on the worst examples and comments like this help refresh my pallet from bias. I appreciate the open mindedness.
Jacob, do you realise that with the term 'oppose' you bring in 'right' vs 'wrong'? I'm not opposed to any belief, but keep in mind that 'believe' is accepting something without (sound/scientific/repeatable) proof. I do not believe, and I do not find any proof for a god. I'm not against any belief. I'm against almost any religious organisation, as they tend to find it acceptable to impose their worldview on others. And without proof that is a problem. The existence of a god is an extraordinary claim, so it needs extraordinary proof. In short, I do NOT oppose your belief. I do oppose it when your belief gets out of the private/personal world. The only exception I'm willing to make is for Santa Claus / Sint Nicolaas. And yes, if you teach your children to believe, you surpass my threshold of imposing on others.
@@manga_accurate_angel welp your pallet must have been strongly influenced, bc this is how basically every christian I know goes on about it. I guess most atheists are shown only extreme and negative cases of christians and take that as what christians tend to be like. hope u get what I mean
I wanna start by saying that this is a good video, and while I appreciate the attention to and exploration of atheism/agnosticism, I think it's kind of incorrect to present it like this. While a Christian, Muslim, Jewish person, or Buddhist will generally ascribe themselves to specific denominations, sects, or traditions, most non-religious people arrive at their conclusions independently and don't consider themselves to belong to a specific organizational "tradition" of atheism. For example, I was an atheist before I'd ever heard of Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens. I guess what I'm trying to say is that while most theists belong to longstanding religious traditions , most atheists don't associate with any of the organizations in the video. There are lots of Christians who, for example, identify with Pentecostalism, Muslims with Shi'ism, Jewish people with reformism, Buddhists with Therevada, etc, but comparatively few non-religious people identify with any of the organizations in this video. But I guess all of these labels are applied from the outside looking in. In any case, it's still an interesting and informative video.
Yeah, I think looking at other philosophical and ethical traditions associated with atheism would have been a lot more useful and effective. There are dozens more groups. And there are some athiest organizations that actively have members or associated people who train in ethics, thinking, or other things that they think are valuable or necessary> Like there is the new "rationalists" Which have become a significant community online and even has a decent number of meetings in which normal people participate. It fits into the wider cultural/ideological space of those who are really concerned about AI safety while simultaneously looking forward to a liberation from the world's problems from AI. The obeservation that most athiests philosophically have a humanist worldview is notable. However, To an extent there are other philosophical thought leaders in atheism or other philosophical movements that can have very cult-like followings even.
Vast majority (if not all) of self-described "atheist" I know (which admitedly is not that many, maybe only 7-8 people) actually agree with humanism and free-thinker-ism/skepticism. They all only believe in natural and observeable/perceivable world/reality, and in what they consider as natural/humanist ethics. Point is, even if you never think about these values, if you agree with those them, you can be associated with them. On the other hand, there are atheists (and also theists) who lived a highly hedonistic and opportunistic way of life. These are self-righteous a-holes who don't seem to believe in humanism nor the general well-being of the society. I know someone who lived a crazy wild life and didn't seems to have any shred of remorse till the very end of his life. He did not believe in god or religion, so I suppose he believe that life is nothing more than a "game" or whatever. Even so, I think we can still categorize these type of people as "hedonists" or "anarchists".
I think one thing to keep in mind is that, while religious denominations are exclusive and necessarily negate or contradict one another on some level, people can occupy more than one “denomination” on this list. In order of importance, I am a: Humanist (who to prioritize in society) Skeptic (how to think about the world) Secularist (how society should be organized) Freethinker (who should tell me what to think) Agnostic (what I know about gods) Atheist (what I believe about gods) “Denominations” works for cladistic classification of ideas (i.e. ideas that are distinct but share a common lineage) but it doesn’t work for classification of the ideas in this video because they’re not mutually exclusive 🙂
You distinguish agnosticism from atheism in a way that is new to me. I have never identified as “agnostic,” regarding it as a way for atheists to avoid arguments with their family and neighbors. (That itself now no longer seems like such a bad thing to me.) I can’t identify primarily as “atheist” because I refuse to think of or state my deepest principles by a negative. It has been decades since I have seriously considered theology as part of my world view at all. I now identify with “religious naturalism”; religious because I do experience awe and transcendence as these states are traditionally understood. I have had these experiences since childhood, sometimes but not exclusively at Mass; in adulthood, commonly in forest environments. The odors of a forest floor can trigger transcendence. I have belonged to the Unitarian Universalist denomination for 20+ years now. In that context, I have often heard the terms “humanist” and “secular humanist,” but humanity is not the main focus of my religious thought.
@@MMG-q1v Love this. I wish I didn’t have to identify myself with a negative either. But the fact of the matter is I am a citizen of a society in which, when I move to a new location, “What church do you go to?” is a common introduction. Unfortunately, to these people and other people who want to legislate laws based on their religious convictions, I have to be the one in the room to say, “What if we made rules, not based on books or ideologies, but on the common prosperity of us all?”
@@MMG-q1v That would be more politically advantageous for sure. I agree with the sentiment but not because Jesus said it. It’s because it’s a good idea, regardless of who said it 🙂
@@ThomasO2 It is not clear to me that Jesus said it; there has been active scholarly debate for years now about whether”Jesus” ever existed. It does allow people to leave the conversation feeling certain that I am sufficiently pious, though.
You missed the part about Anton LaVey getting his ideas from Ayn Rand. The Church of Satan barrowed a lot of ideas from Objectivism, which should probably be included on this chart.
@@agnusdeiquitollispecatamundi Nope, she was born to a Jewish family in St. Petersburg as it was known at the time, but she was an avowed Atheist. So if she would have believed in god, it would have likely been as a Jew not christian, and even if she converted to Christianity, she would have then been a messianic Jew or a Russian Orthodox. Russia had basically no Catholics.
And a half-understood smattering of Thelema. Most of what he didn't crib from Rand he did from Crowley and figured "Do what thou wilt" essentially meant "Do whatever you damn well please." That and the ritual magic thing.
TIL. Thanks for this. It would have been nice to have been in the video. I thought a lot could have been added to the Hinduism video as well. But, it's difficult to pin down all the various sects and branchings in something so vast as this series. I think the Christianity one was so impressive in depth, that it made the others feel disappointingly sparse.
I’m surprised the French Revolution and freemasonry wasn’t discussed more. Even though it’s more deistic stuff, I think it’s highly relevant to discussions of the lead up to modern atheism.
I would love those this kind of chart, but for Neo-Pagan groups. It would be so cool to see it starting in PIE era and ending with various modern pagan groups
@@Dorgpoop while that is true, there are certainly different paths that could be given this treatment, such as tribal animism and Yzidis. However, the others could just as easily be given a dotted line right through the last few hundred/thousand years to modern interpretations.
@@Dorgpoop Most of what I hear and read suggests that's true. However, it seems that many other modern religions claim continuity with older religious or theologies that they may not have continuity with either. Matt has presented the concept of a break between myth and legend and history, and I wonder if this model is applicable in the same way. Or should we segregate religions that have demonstrated continuity since some arbitrary point in history from newer religious movements that either don't claim ancient links or can't prove them?
@@user-zt1gg6iu5ihow so? Unless-as I suspect you’re doing-you’re just using “paganism” as a snarky and dismissive pejorative to describe atheists, I’d like to know where you come from with this comment.
I’m an atheist and I remember hearing someone wanting to insult someone else by calling them something like “An Atheist advocating for Voltaire’s ideas”. I thought to myself “Is that an insult or did he just describe me and basically my entire general community”. Growing up in the Nordic countries you never think of yourself, your family or friends as atheists, it’s just being a regular person.
As a 62 year old lifelong athiest, this was very informative and useful. I have contributed to a few of the organizations over the years but don't normally join groups. Part of the reason for this is that I just didn't really undertsand the differences between them. This video helps with that. Thank you.
I respectfully suggest that the way to understand how these various world views are similar and different would be to participate in one, or two, or several (not all at once). You say you are “not a joiner.” I would never question your perception of yourself, of course. I am a joiner, always have been and apparently always will be. As a religious naturalist, it seems obvious to me that the talking ape (Home sapiens) thinks and acts most effectively and positively in sociality.
@@MMG-q1v My interest is in understanding which is more likely to do be doing effective work against organized religion. The current Christian Nationalist surge is very troubling and I'd like to know which organization I should support financially. I have only "joined" groups in order to donate to them. I don't actively participate by attending events to socialize. I get plenty of socialization opportunities elsewhere.
@@Area_Man I am perhaps overly optimistic in thinking that the Christian Nationalist surge is blowing up religious “conservatism” as it calls itself. Organized religious naturalism would be fine with me. I would like to have a role in organizing a religious naturalist group in my own UU congregation. This video gave me a lot of information I think I could use on that mission.
@@Area_Man "troubling" is the lack of awareness that atheism is a darwin award, while being so lacking in skepticism the msm talking point of the day guides them like sheep.
I know this video is more about general schools of thought and philosiphies, but to make the hopefully obvious point- Atheism doesn't work like religion. To be an atheist you don't need to follow the teachings of someone or a book that has all the knowledge. Being an atheist just means not believing in any religion. And before anyone tries to say the dumbest sentence ever- no, science is not a religion. Science is a method to discovering facts, and so you can not listen to any scientist and completely ignore all science books, and you'd still come to the same conclusions as scientists have, if you just follow the scientific method.
@@Charles-js3ri if people act around it like it is one, then a recognition of this fact should not be discarded. And yes, there are a lot of atheists, who have made their particular favorite scientific view a religion, not allowing any challenge to it and acting quite fanatically about it. And the whole point of the scientific method is that challenge is not just allowed but welcomed, which showcases that they don't treat science as a tool, but as a religion.
not a day goes by that I don't see a nonsense claim made by representatives of ''science'' with dogmatic followers claiming it's true because ''the science says so'', covid was a real wake up call to most people, seeing how corrupt most of science is and how often they lie to benefit themselves. it's a real problem, it's eroding trust in science and the scientific method with the general public, in a rational society, the scientists who make wild, bold and inaccurate claims should be stripped of their degrees and potentially face prison time for having done damage to society on poor data and corruption to interests groups like pharma companies, this practice is now so widespread that a significant size of the population now mistrusts scientists and ''experts'' we must restore scientific, academic standards and hold people responsable, we won't as a society but we really should, perhaps the next generations will have to deal with that.@@Charles-js3ri
not a day goes by that I don't see a nonsense claim made by representatives of ''science'' with dogmatic followers claiming it's true because ''the science says so'',
As an atheist I have never read a manifesto of atheists in my life but I probably naturally share common thoughts regarding the world and the supernatural. Therefore I do not follow a creed or manifesto or somebody else’s definition of an atheist. I have come to my own conclusions and I believe many others have too.
@bubbles581 But most actual Atheist or non believers have reach their current POV not because any direct or indirect involment with any of the rather niche and esoteric groups posted in this chart... they just use mainstream science, philosophy, culture and politics as a base for their world views (surely not Satanist propaganda). If some one make a chart of Christian denominations that only include Mormons, Amish, and Anabaptist... making sure to make several remarks about the weirdsness and criminal actitivities of individuals in this groups, but somehow didnt mention Chatolicism, Luteran or Orthodox Churches... Im pretty sure people will find that way of doing things rather partial.
@bubbles581 People hardly have any concept of how far 1 mile is, let alone 100 million miles. You can still observe that the sun is further away than planes, clouds, satellites, and the moon (which, itself, is so much further away than it seems to be). You can observe that the sun is far away without learning of any exact distance and still conclude that it is far away without having been taught that by "society."
The meticulous detailing of historical timelines and exploration of major religions on this channel is both captivating and educational. Keep up the great work!
Three pieces of feedback: I'm with others that perhaps a little more emphasis that these organisations constitute very much a minority of Atheists, and I think the "but most Christians don't go to church" analogy is a little flawed - physically going to church doesn't place you outside of a denomination, per "religion" as opposed to just "theist" there's a somewhat organised set of beliefs, so a non-church-going Anglican is very much a thing. A better comparison to that would be there is the weak/strong implicit/explicit atheists division. - This is not to say that looking at these organisations and how they evolved is bad, but just a little more emphasis would probably have been a good thing. That said, I think your move of addressing Ontology / Epistemology / Ethics and those different currents in Atheism is a good move. I also think the inclusion of Satanists is a very good move, although I'd contend that a fifth category, perhaps 'Satirical' would have been a good move. There's a number of notable atheist organisations who effectively protest and challenge religion in a very serious sense, but through satirising them more. (A certain airborne Italian dish comes to mind as one well known, but not the only, example).
the fact that people go to a certain church doesn't make them that denomination. the truth is christians especially now aren't in boxes, and so many (most) christians fully believe because of free thought and reflection, as opposed to tradition. I like many christians am not part of any denomination, and probably have no denomination that sets to believe everything I do. Get what I mean? So yes, that argument is flawed but only because your church doesn't define your denomination anyway.
@@danieljohn4014 This depends on if you are using the wider religious usage of "denomination" or the narrower usage of "denomination" which also only appears in Christianity. The narrower Christian usage does define a denomination as all churches of the same kind (what counts as that, be it same leadership, similar enough theological doctrine, etc. is more complicated). The wider usage is any large subgroup within a religion, for instance the branches of Judaism may be termed as denominations, or the various Madhhab may be termed as such, likewise the various Hindu movements/traditions. Likewise, the broader definition can still be applied to Christianity. Someone who follows Catholic traditions and teachings, but doesn't attend church, may still be termed a Catholic. Furthermore, while more personal variation in theology may exist in Christianity today, and more Christians today may not attend church as regularly as in the past, the Churches are still vastly larger than the Atheist organisations, and those formal Atheist organisations have never been huge, even in the past.
I would think these organisation represent political atheists. It feeds into the US apologetic notion of "Atheism" as a belief system, and "Atheists do this, or think that". I find it annoying tbh. Unfortunately even these organisations get hijacked from within by special interest. Thunderf00t has a story from years ago as to why he opted out of an "official" organisation.
While I agree most atheist don't follow these organizations (at least most the one's I've met), unfortunately some people do try to turn atheism into a defacto religion, in that they will construct a belief based worldview & ethical system and then act in a manner similar to a devout religious person (and it's not an insignificant number of people). So for example: 1)Faith: I have seen some atheists simply believe a statement without any further investigation or curiosity, simply because the presenter had a PHD or a "study" was mentioned (without actually reading the study or even the abstract). For example, had a coworker start drinking beer before bed because a news report mentioned a study claiming it's health benefits, he just believed it without question. 2)Higher Power: Some seem to view progress/technology as a higher power, insofar as they see it as an inevitable or unstoppable force that will fix everything or even turn into literal AI-Gods who will determine our fate. 3)Heaven: some see atheism as the key to a technological Star Trek wonderland or even a way to transcend into pure energy (Seth McFarlane seems to have this view), even though the scientific method isn't necessarily dependent on atheism. 4)Forced conversion: I've been in institutions were they will attempt to block religious things (gathering, symbols, etc) while force mandatory attendance to "scientific" lectures (essentially new-atheism type stuff) or even require the writing of pro-atheist statements (one was: "write why astrology is bad for individuals and society"). Although the irony is both times they got hammered by social justice types. 5)theres more examples I could give, but it's getting to long.
Your first video on atheists (where you discuss your dissertation) brought me here. Now it's come full circle, and I enjoyed the ride. I definitely intend to continue, see where these charts take me.
Another great chart. You could also make them digital, so we can click on them to get some of the details in your videos. Thanks for your continued work!!
I always liked how in the South Park episode Poor Kid Kenny's guardians are named Mr. & Mrs. Weatherhead after Reverend Weatherhead who popularised the sect of agnostism
I wasn't expecting this, but I'm glad you included this. It really highlights that philosophy and the question of why we exist is something shared by both the religious and non-religious.
@@erdood3235 Because religion is not based on evidence, it is based on blind trust which makes it rigid and dogmatic, while science is a self-correcting method.
@@Davidsasz1239 right, but everyone has beliefs and philosophical thoughts, while we should never compare religious claims to scientific claims, we can absolutely compare the experience of people whether they're religious or not and how they deal with life's tough questions. Religious or not we're all people and we all have subjective Interpretations and experiences, and my experience with X is not more or less valid than someone else's. Now, for state policy and the like we can all agree that the more secular, the better, and that no ancient text should dictate whether somebody deserves human dignity and civil rights. But the video is specifically about atheistic schools of thought and organizations through history.
No mention of Atheism Plus by Jey McCreight? They represent a woman led, anti racist, anti sexist coalition of atheists who received huge critique by skeptic and New Atheist communities. This characterized atheism for much of the 2010s and still is probably the biggest split (progressive atheists who align with humanism and Atheism Plus vs other groups). They definitely deserve a shout-out
Atheism+ wasn’t very long-lived, principally on account that as atheists with an interest in humanism, many of us were swiftly and horribly disillusioned by the contrary reaction of movement atheism, which largely wanted a kind of atheism devoid of any self-reflection on humanistic ideals and ethics, and rebelled at aiming self-criticism at their own ethical practices before attempting to criticise others. Now to be fair to Dr Baker, at the outset he says (correctly) that most atheists who might identify as such also tend to be freethinkers and humanists, but it was the experience of this Atheist+ member that there are just as many who only paid lip service to humanism, and this attitude extended some of to the organisations represented in the chart, which makes it sort of worthless as showing delineations of schools of (free)thought. I know Dr Baker was trying to pitch this chart as a slightly humorous take, but if the humour falls flat (and it sort of did for me, having lived through the period of disillusionment with many of these atheist organisations) then the impression comes across as cynical and glib. This is a mere organisation chart, not a map of schools of thought.
One decent-sized quibble I have here, although less with the taxonomy itself (I actually really like this video a lot!) than a particular oversight early on, is that there is a very significant tradition of atheistic antihumanism in the West, particularly in the various schools of Continental philosophy but also in certain strains of analytic philosophy. That said, secular humanists are far more likely to found organisations specifically devoted to the propagation of secular humanism than, say, structural Marxists, positivist sociologists, deep ecologists, dialectical egoists or pessimist antinatalists are to found their own organisations dedicated entirely to their rejection of both religion and traditional humanism, although the latter are certainly likely to form groups, formal or otherwise, with those perspectives baked into their core unifying principles. That being said, a genealogy of either post-Enlightenment European philosophy or left-wing political philosophy would probably rectify the better part of that discrepancy. :P
We should explore your idea that specifies anti-humanistic atheism. Anti-natalists are not non-religious by definition, but also found to be religious including some: Buddhists, Taoists, Christians and Gnostics; Dialectical Egoists was a term coined by Sterner and anarchists to attack Humanism but especially Communism, the term seems to describe narcissists well (anarchism, nor communism are inherently non-religious). Arne Næss was a Norwegian philosopher who coined the term "deep ecology", making clear that he felt the real motivation to 'free nature' was spiritual and intuitive. 'Your motivation comes from your total view or your philosophical, religious opinions'; it does not exclude the religious whereas "non-religious" specifics it is NOT religious; deep ecology does not exclude those with religious claims. Positive socialists also do not exclude the religious, however I would agree that many affirmed atheists lean toward the scientific method as a way of knowing (ontology)and that many representations, in the chart above, claim this philosophy. Structural Marxism is a political theory and not a stance on god or religion either; there are Right leaning atheists, but I have heard of no Right-leaning atheist organizations. Humanism started as a self proclaimed religious movement, that morphed into a Secular one. Humanism also does not exclude the religious, so perhaps should not be viewed as atheistic. Most of the disagreements here seem to stem from different political or ontological positions. (Ontology having the merit of being able to peg down an atheist.) Whereas Humanism eventually merged or morphed more generally into atheist movements, anarchists and anti-communists did not. Perhaps this latter non-conformist needs a better look: Neo-liberalism and Anarchism come to mind.
@@rychei5393 Whether or not some of the beliefs encompassed by these terms may be ascribed to by religious or vaguely spiritual people is sort of irrelevant, particularly given the context in which I am speaking here; with the exception of deep ecology, where another strain of hard green thought probably would have been more appropriate given the often slightly mystical tenor of that tendency, in the context of the history of "Western" philosophy (the same context as the forms of atheism discussed in the video), pretty much all of these positions are fundamentally associated with atheism and tend to spring from a strict materialist or naturalist position while also denying the core conceits of humanistic philosophy, whether they be specific ethical frameworks, human nature as a fixed thing, or anthropocentrism more generally. But you more broadly seem to be implying that I don't know what these terms actually mean, while also misunderstanding several of them. You confuse sociology with socialism in response to my mention of positivism; you seem to have a pretty superficial understanding of Stirner beyond his amoralism and feud with Marx; it appears that you entirely missed why I might specify structural Marxism, a synthesis of two distinct strains of thought critical of humanism (structuralism and orthodox Marxism); and, although perhaps this is simply me misreading you, you seem to have a very peculiar understanding of what "neoliberalism" is. I can chalk most if not all of these up to argumentativeness and "making a point" rather than complete ignorance, but I do find it rather annoying. Also, for the record, I am an anarchist myself, albeit not an atheist per se. I am well aware of the history of faith within anarchism as well as the critiques of religion within that milieu. I do not need to be lectured on the history of my own intellectual lineage by someone who describes dialectical egoism as intrinsically anti-communist and antisocial, clearly knowing nothing of Emma Goldman or communisation theory.
@5393 Just so your aware, Satanists are a right leaning atheist organizations. They're libertarian in philosophy, having been birthed from objectivism.
16:02 I feel like this conflates the two different definitions of "creed". In the dictionaries I've checked, it's neatly split into a 50/50 between (def 1) "a set of religious principles" and (def 2) "a set of beliefs that influences the way you live". The definition 2 doesn't have a requirement to keep the set of beliefs constant, but definition 1 assumes the principles are religious and therefore there is a requirement to maintain them. The controversy is defining something as a "creed" on the basis of definition 2 and then treating it according to the definition 1. Ultimately, it's some abstract semantics so it doesn't matter a lot, but I really couldn't understand the controversy until I rewinded that segment three times and checked the dictionary.
thank you, I was also confused about that, he seemed to be trying to conflate religious creeds with humanist creeds. while they share a name, they are not the same thing. you made it even clearer than I could have put it, didn't even think about checking the dictionary.
I'd argue there is even another difference: Religious creeds are often tied to the specific verbiage used to convey the message, while "a set of beliefs that influences the way you live" doesn't have to be explicitly worded. This doesn't seem like a huge deal on the face of it, but in the act of interpreting words that are already deemed to be correct (because it's a religious creed), you often end up with different interpretations that reflect different implicit beliefs when asking different people. When you just ask different self-proclaimed atheists whether they agree with humanist statements, it's not as if they go "Oh, I know this phrase; that's the one I (dis)agree with!" They might have shared values, but I'd argue that that is not the same as a creed. You could compare it to divergent and convergent evolution. A religious creed can have a divergent evolution of values and beliefs associated with that can all be tied back to it, whereas two atheists might believe that God doesn't exist, but that isn't proof in itself that their disbelief comes from the same place (even though they might). It's not a perfect analogy, but I hope you get the point.
I think that this argument is using the “dictionary fallacy”. Dictionaries do not adjudicate meaning so because Useful Chart’s use of Creed doesn’t necessarily fit a textbook definition it does not mean that his use of Creed wouldn’t be understood by others in the same colloquial way.
The more important thing to note is that whatever definition you use; belief in something doesn't make you a member of that society / group etc... In all "religoon" (and let's assume the premise that "athesim is a religion"), the main aspect is "faith" and membership. You have to be a member of something to be that thing. Most of us do not think much about religion or chuchr, even atheists. I would say that the entire graph drawn here represents the set of people "who care about spirituality". That is probably 60%. Thus 40% (made up numbers) do not really care or think much about spirituality.
I just wanna point out the fact that agnosticism by itself is not really a non-religious category, because even agnostics can also be religious. There's a non-theistic religion called "unitarian universalism" that allows atheists, deists, agnostics, and pantheists into their congregation. So, therefore, agnosticism is not really synonymous with irreligion. But i'm also glad that you have mentioned "non-religious theists" in this video, because most people tend to associate non-religious with atheism most of the time. 😎
@UsefulCharts: At 08:03, you state that “[Charles Bradlaugh] was the first person to request to affirm that he would tell the truth rather than taking an oath on a Bible.” This is not correct. The U.S. Constitution - penned 90-odd years before Bradlaugh was elected as MP - refers multiple times to persons taking an Oath or Affirmation. Moreover, the Quakers Act 1695 allows Quakers to substitute an affirmation for an oath in many situations. It is more correct to say that Bradlaugh was the first UK MP to request to substitute an affirmation for the Oath of Allegiance.
Hey... I'm pretty sure we have atheists and atheist organisations in Europe too. And the rest of the world also. This video is 100% NA-centric. Also the organisations from this video do not represent neither atheism nor atheists. If we are talking about ORGANISATIONS then there are thousands of Christian organisations. Heck. There are thousands of Catholic organisations. So this video is an equivalent of making a family tree of catholic organisations such as Caritas, Opus Dei, Catholic Worker Movement etc etc.
I kept expecting China, the country where more than 40% of the world's atheists live to be mentioned at least once... And true! This is just as silly as an atheist calling the Salvation Army a denomination.
I feel the need to point out that while many non-religious people identify as humanist, a lot of theists do, too. Humanism is a worldview, not a theology: the first principle listed in Humanist Manifesto of 1933 states, "Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created." The seventh principle reads, "Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious. It includes labor, art, science, philosophy, love, friendship, recreation--all that is in its degree expressive of intelligently satisfying human living. The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained." The second Humanist Manifesto of 1973 states: Many kinds of humanism exist in the contemporary world. The varieties and emphases of naturalistic humanism include “scientific,” “ethical,” “democratic,” “religious,” and “Marxist” humanism. Free thought, atheism, agnosticism, skepticism, deism, rationalism, ethical culture, and liberal religion all claim to be heir to the humanist tradition. Humanism traces its roots from ancient China, classical Greece and Rome, through the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, to the scientific revolution of the modern world. But views that merely reject theism are not equivalent to humanism. They lack commitment to the positive belief in the possibilities of human progress and to the values central to it. Many within religious groups, believing in the future of humanism, now claim humanist credentials. Humanism is an ethical process through which we all can move, above and beyond the divisive particulars, heroic personalities, dogmatic creeds, and ritual customs of past religions or their mere negation. Similarly, the label freethought indicates a worldview that includes both theist and non-theist positions. As for the difference between weak and strong atheism, this is the distinction I use: Weak: I do not believe there is a god. (Lack of belief) Strong: I believe there is no god. (Assertion of lack.)
I wish atheists would stop giving themselves such cringe names. "Freethinkers", "rationalists", and to some extent "skeptics" are _embarrassingly_ arrogant names. I get that it's difficult to come up with a good name for a group defined by what they aren't, but jfc, "freethinkers" is like the worst possible choice.
@@bankiey I would guess not much. In my experience, people make decisions and then rationalise them post-hoc. I also don't think that lacking belief in gods is thought of as being an important belief by most atheists.
@@mrpocock...lacking belief in a god/gods (a theology) is quite literally what atheism is. That's like saying the most important part of "atonal music" isn't the fact that it lack a tonal center. I assure you, that is the most (and only) defining characteristic.
I'd like to mention, however, that there are self-proclaimed Satanists who are not associated with the Satanists mentioned in this video. They actively practice the worship of Satan. I knew someone who argued that God is not benevolent and is actually the evil-doer, who cast Satan out and that Satan is the one who was looking out humanity, not God.
A possible 'dotted line' to add to the chart is the increasing prevalence of people practicing buddhist meditation (some describing themselves as buddhist and some not) who regard themselves as athiests. In particular I would point to Sam Harris who is a strong proponent of this world view - but in practice there are dozens of meditation centres from 'insight' and vipasspna traditions where the supernatural is entirely stripped away and are actually or defacto athiest. Not all, but a great deal of buddhism in the west is essentially athiest - perhaps in a similar way to athiest unitarianism emerging from christiantiy.
I find myself a little dissatisfied with this video for a few reasons. Firstly, I think a very large percentage of the non-religious community is in China. In fact, I'd bet that the majority of atheists are Chinese. So, its a big omission to not include Chinese schools of thought. I think communist philosophical movements deserved at least a mention. Also, I think its the case that the majority of non-religious people are not part of an organized movement. You focused on organized groups. But, I think the silent majority of non-religious community are simply people who don't attend any sort of church, and don't view religion as being part of their life. So, by focusing on atheist organizations, you're focusing on a rather small subset of the non-religious community.
21:39 - no, skepticism isn't new. The skeptical tradition originated in the Hellenistic period of ancient philosophy. After mostly lying dormant through much of the medieval era, it was revived and-to some extent-transformed in early modern philosophy.
So if I understand it correctly, the important differences between Religious denominations v. Atheist "denominations" are: (1) You can be a member of multiple atheist "denominations" at the same time-without a conflict of interest or beliefs, and without suffering from cognitive dissonance 🤣. Whereas with religions, at any one time, you can be a member of only one denomination (sect) of only one religion. (2) Atheist "denominations" are not-for-profit organizations and function as such. They have a charter, a constitution, and bye-laws that are created by their human members, and can be modified by the members. Whereas organized religions have a fixed, rigid canon of divine origin that may be interpreted-but not modified-by humans.
(3) You don't need to be a member of any "denomination" or advocacy group to be best described as an atheist, even if your core set of values align with them partially or totally.
" Whereas organized religions have a fixed, rigid canon of divine origin" Often, but not always. Particularly with many Eastern religions, and there are even a few sects who identify as Christian or Muslim for whom that also holds true.
@@gastonpossel "You don't need to be a member of any "denomination" or advocacy group to be best described as an atheist" This could also apply for many American Evangelicals who shift denominations and churches constantly or attend several at once, as well as many other groups.
You seem to be generalizing religions based on Christianity. Most religions in history are just fine with a person following many paths. Most religions don’t contradict each other in meaningful ways.
I think there is a case to be made that Anton LaVey was not, strictly speaking, an atheist. Although he was cagey about occult theory, he clearly thought Magick worked somehow. Occult supernaturalism was definitely part of the early Satanic Church, even while, for the most part, the more supernatural faction of the Church left to form the Temple of Set. I think he was a supernaturalist who reveled in his ambiguity around the issue of supernaturalism.
You know your chart about atheist "denominations" is incredibly americanocentrist when it doesn't feature any of the European movements like the libertines or the cult of reason.
@UsefulCharts PLEASE add Comte's Positivism, it had an American branch, the Church of Humanity, and the original from France, the Religion of Humanity. The Religion of Humanity was one of THE main inspirations for other secular/humanist groups and ethical societies
The fact that reason brings one to conclusions substantially similar to a certain creed does not imply that the person "believes" in the creed, just that they agree with its statements. I really enjoy your videos, thank you.
@square3356" A lot of atheists have personal atheistic heroes... " . Do they? The more active and vocal ones probably do, but I am willing to bet the vast majority of atheists don't have any such heroes, just think it's all rubbish. They are too bust getting on with their lives.
It's funny how you discuss "atheist" being a very strong label that a lot of non-religious folks avoided using in the past. Today, I myself don't self-describe as an atheist for almost the opposite reason: I associate the word too much with Reddit neckbeards who dedicate most of their time online to discussing how stupid religious people are.
Forgot the name of it but I'm the type of atheist that basically goes "dudes, first figure your shit out, define it, present it, THEN I'll check it out." There isn't anything to discuss because they haven't really given us anything to discuss that makes sense.
It’s called Atheist. “Without a belief in god” because your case is unconvincing. People want to hide from the word Atheist because of bigotry and ignorance. But it is simple and clear.
I would add "religiously affiliated atheists" to the list. There are a lot of people who are non religious/atheist but have deep cultural ties to the religion they grew up in. I consider myself to fall into that category.
Religious people have a difficult time addressing the topic that atheism isn't a religion and cannot be classified as one in any logically productive sense. Unfortunately this video makes that same mistake.
To be fair he only used the term Atheist to feed the algorithm and the Clickbait, this video is actually about Non-Religious organizations, not atheist individuals.@@Yordleton
difficult topic and also very incorrect atheism is the opposite of theism, so it can't by definition have denominations. These are not denominations of atheism - these are denominations of spiritualism UsefulCharts has it wrong, but yeah I don't blame him, it took me ages to figure out what all of those things are...
As an atheist, I shudder at the term "The Brights". It is true that very accomplished people in the hard sciences, for example, most Nobel Prize Winners in Physics, Chemistry, Medicine/Physiology, are atheists. I have met very intelligent atheists - but I have also met many atheists who are as intelligent as a pile of rocks. And the hubris of calling yourselves "the brights", with the implicit suggestion that anyone not in line with your world view is NOT bright, is very off-putting. I work in medicine. I have religious colleagues. They are intelligent - but they were also raised in a culture that so strongly emphasised religiosity, that they cannot help but believe. Belief is not just a matter of raw intelligence - emotional pull, societal and family expectations and, in some cases, law, compel people to believe regardless of their intellectual prowess. And insulting them is not the best way to convince them to change their world view. The brights counter this by saying that if you are not a "bright" or "Bright" (the capital B being a way to distinguish those who are actively affiliated with their movement as opposed to those who just agree with them - I think the Capital B could signify a less generous term, to be honest), then you are a "Super" - as in someone who believes in the supernatural. But why use "Bright" as a term opposite of "Super"? Wouldn't "Naturalist" be a better term? I am an atheist and I do not mind telling that to others. But in my dealings with many young atheists, I honestly find myself very depressed. They seem to mostly be in the movement for self-congratulatory celebrations of how they are smarter than those in the opposite camp. Out reach and winning people over is not often the goal. I get that many feel the need to praise each other in a world that is often overtly hostile to them, but it hurts any attempt at reaching out. Atheist movements need to be seen as welcoming to all humans and not as a club for the "Smartest" to mock those who are not.
Normally, I appreciate your charts, but this time you missed the mark. Badly. Atheism is not a culture or a class. It is not a faith, and as such has no denominations. Atheism is a negative, rather than affirmative state, and can only be measured demographically. One is an atheist because he or she either A) never heard about god/fods thus the person never believed, or, B) they heatd sn argument for a god or gods and rejected it. That's it. End of story. An atheist need not take any position, have any cosmology, nor feel the need to explain anything. An atheist is simply one eho doesn't believe in god. It's in the word... a-theist. You can do better than this.
Those are political/economic theories, they don't have anything to do with religion. The USSR and China being mostly atheist has little to do with the actual beliefs of Marxism or Socialism. As an aside myself and many other leftists would argue that neither of those countries were even remotely socialist let alone communists.
@@stevenclark5173 Marx didn’t just write about politics and economics, he dealt with philosophy in many works. I’m also not sure how communist countries actually reflecting marxism is relevant. its undeniable that Marxist philosophies played a major role in history and i think marxist atheism should be considered a “denomination” of atheism.
@@stevenclark5173 yes, Christian religion was very antagonistic to other anti religions, Islam, pagan beliefs in Africa and Americas. As well, the Communism was very antagonistic against other systems of thinking as Capitalism, Social Democracy etc. No tolerance. Communism was the only true and valid system. If you opposed you ended up in prison, gulag or executed.
I love how to support your claims about atheist and secular “denominations” - in particular, the bit about having “creeds” - you had developed a scientific study of your own and collected and analysed relevant data, which is a very secular thing to do despite not being secular yourself. I also love the choice of angsty red and black for the Satanist sections of the chart, which is actually in line with the main Satanic criticism of religious influence, how imagery and stories can be used to sway entire groups of people despite objective, measurable reality. My point is, I really enjoy how your atheist videos are all presented in a way that is friendly towards atheist believes, sentiments and processes, despite not identifying as atheist yourself.
In 20:00, you say that New Atheism represented a turn in the sense of a new atheist attack on religion which was uncommon before. While that is true of the groups you cite, there have been many atheist movements and groups more broadly who campaigned strongly against religion from way back, from the Young Hegelians to many Marxist groups, French secularism to an extent, and Mexican revolutionaries. Most groups you cite probably think those campaigns led to more harm than good, and they may well be correct, but I still find that worth noting.
16:55 - how many self-described theists did you survey? Your graphs show atheist and agnostic responses combined, and all they really show is (surprise surprise) the *entirely expected* disagreement between these and churchgoing christians about the foundational beliefs of christianity (that god and souls do or do not exist).
Secularism doesn’t require individuals to be atheists or agnostics. It simply means that public institutions and laws should remain neutral and not impose any specific religious beliefs on citizens. Secular governments protect religious freedom by ensuring citizens are free to practice their faith without interference from the state, and religious institutions operate independently from government control. And that's not the case with some religious countries, like Uganda (Christian country) or the Muslim world. In the Muslim world apostasy is punishable by death.
"I am an atheist." "As soon as the plane starts to fall, you will start to believe." "It could be, but that's part of the point. 'God' is part of our psychology, another narrative we can turn to in order to deal with uncertainty. Not something out there overseeing the universe."
I'm probably somewhere between agnostic and spiritual (May the Force be with you!), but it will never not be funny to see or hear so many atheists try to explain why their belief systems are special and shouldn't be categorized or organized into groups like every other belief system throughout human history. Good video as always. TY
I feel like not mentioning Marxism in a video on Atheist "denominations" is on the level of leaving the Roman Catholic Church out of a video on Christian denominations. Like, you don't have to support the Soviet Union at all to acknowledge that they're kinda important in the spread of Atheism in Eastern Europe, like, these are the guys who tried to militantly disband the church. Even outside the Soviets, leftism and anti-religion go hand in hand
That'd be very interesting, but it's also talking about a small community that's very firmly rooted in counter-culture (and over several centuries, at this point!), so it might be difficult to be both informative about the history _and_ fair to the present-day community. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, though.
satanists just seem edgy to be edgy and take on the label other religions gave them. on the one hand I can respect the bold move, on the other hand aren't you playing into the stereo types your trying to break away from? makes no sense to me.
It definitely attracts a certain type of person. Most tend to be edgy and selfish, as expected of autotheism. They can also just be a kind goth but they are not the louder voice.
My understanding is that the reason they call themselves Satanists (besides the obvious shock value to the theocratically minded conservatives) is to show admiration to the literary character in Milton's Paradise Lost. Specifically, that character's refusal to be subjected to divine authoritarianism.
interesting, I used to follow someone who was a satanist, it seems more like a free spirited movement of openness and tolorance for all and individualism. not exactly harmful to anyone, just a bit edgy to be seen, makes sense considering where and when it started.@@mathewfinch
that is because people still didn't fully understand the natural world, spiritualism was a "naturalist" way to explain things that were fully believed to be real because a culture centered around religion, like ghosts and afterlife, without assuming the bible (and other religious texts) had the answer. freethinking is just the realization that we shouldn't blindly believe in religious texts, not that we suddenly realized everything we believed to be true for thousands of years, like magic and spirits, were not real.
@@danilooliveira6580 I acknowledge that your response captures some people's approaches to spiritualism at the time, but to reduce all that falls under the umbrella of spiritualism to pseudoscience akin to phrenology and/or phlogiston theory is to miss how spiritualism acted as an add-on to mainstream theistic belief and/or a de facto religion in itself. Spiritualism was/is much closer to Christian Science or Theosophy than to what the "MacLab" (For those who don't know, look up "Project Alpha James Randi" to read about it.) infamously failed to study with the scientific method.
I'm an Atheist and a Freethinker (not affiliated to any organisation), but I feel I would be iffy calling myself a Humanist - most who adopt that name seem to believe in some kind of "natural law" morality that would apply to all humans in all societies and all times. I am more relativistic than that, though I think it is definitely possible to be "good" and also to do wrong/be hypocritical/trample on human rights (which I view as a social contract all modern states and most modern societies at least nominally adhere to) and thus be "evil" in the absence of religion, I don't think such "good" and "evil" are entirely absolute (nor entirely relative!). I am pretty influenced by the existentialist idea that each person must create their own meaning and thus their own "ethics". I am also influenced by Marxism and social contract theory. I would question the author's questionnaire on this basis - if it asks about my personal beliefs, I probably hold very Humanist ethical beliefs - I would agree with the statements there. But I hold many anti-Humanist metaethical beliefs. Also worth mentioning, many Satanists are anti-Humanist (for different reasons than I am).
I think there's also the hazard that "humanism" can be manipulated into "human-centrism" where exploitation and ecological destruction is justifiable because it improves the condition of humans or of more humans than it harms. So I hesitate to use "humanism" as well, even though, strictly speaking, I'd probably overwhelmingly agree with most its tenants. There is certain and good faith and bad faith use of that philosophy.
That is a third, and relevant, critique of humanism! I personally think that if we understand the interdependency of species and ecosystems we are a part of can lead to a wiser humanism that can survive that critique. Because ultimately if we equally value other beings and humans, our ethics can be driven into almost suicidal or nihilistic positions on humanity given the harm we have already caused/are capable of causing. But definitely humanism is used as a rhetoric by... capitalism to justify its exploitation of nature. @@QuesoCookies
What about using the word "life stance" instead of religion, if you plan on making a chart including both atheist and theist organizations? Also, considered mentioning some of the most prominent non-anglophone atheist organizations?
Some really bad takes and comparisons. Would've been better without including your own opinion. At some points even felt like you're trying to have kind of a "gotcha". I'd prefer you stick to explaining things objectively. I'm not following any of these schools or creeds, never read them. Forcefully putting me into a category just to be able to call it a belief, whereas, in my view, beliefs are something which are received by "revelation" by some people and their followers "believe" that that is true. Comparing apples to pears imho.
Loved to see the "don't care" category from your earlier research. I think that's an often overlooked group. I love studying religion but often have to use ridiculous analogies when describing my own "belief system" that honestly could be summed up with "don't care". Is your dissertation publicly available?
20:25 - no, not evangelistic about spreading atheist ideas, but passionate about resisting the unsupported, untestable delusions that were infecting policy making and challenging those that hold such beliefs and would use them as the basis of their decision making in public realms to justify them. They ask two simple questions: what do you believe, and why do you believe it.
Whoa! Many of the organizations that you've mentioned as being "atheist" denominations _don't_ take an express position one way or another with respect to organized religions and supernatural beings. Consequently, you should also include organizations such as *AARP, ACLU, Red Cross (IRCRCM), UN,* plus some of the organizations that I myself am a member of: *AAA, ACM, IEEE* etc. The last one, in particular, has the motto _"Advancing Technology for Humanity."_ And has more members than all your other "atheist" organizations put together! (To be clear, I said AAA, not AA. The latter requires acceptance of a "higher power," and therefore, wouldn't qualify to be listed here.) On the other hand, you've missed out the most important atheist movement of the late 19th and most of the 20th centuries: *Marxism / Communism.* And let's not forget the much smaller, but fairly popular *Ayn Rand Society.*
I wouldn't regard any of the organizations I recognise from your list as "atheist". People of any or no religion can support them. They aren't religious organizations, but they aren't atheist either. Are sports teams atheist? How about community organizations that support public libraries, museums, etc.? These organizations are secular as opposed to religious. Atheist is the wrong term here.
Also, Marxism and especially communism more broadly are not inherently atheistic. Communism cannot even be considered inherently or implicitly secular.
@@b.a.erlebacher1139 My point exactly! Many of the organizations that Matt mentioned in this video as being atheist denominations are actually secular-they don't take an explicit stand on the existence or otherwise of supernatural beings, and are open to all people irrespective of their religious beliefs. Which is why I supplemented Matt's list with several more secular organizations that are better known and are much larger too. All in good fun, you understand 😜 As for sports teams-well, I don't know of any that are explicitly atheist. But I do know that many of them are religious. Especially those sponsored by religious organizations and those in religious countries. They begin and end their practices with prayer; they pray before matches and during halftime etc. They're required to-not just individually, but as a team activity. Which makes me wonder-what if both teams pray to the same god for victory? On what basis does said god decide which team should win and which team should lose? Sincerity of prayer? Purity of their souls? But I digress.
@square3356 Oh, don't apologize. It's all in good fun, I'm sure 👍. True, the "IST" in "secularist" does have an anti-religion connotation. Whereas "secular"-without the "IST"-is more neutral and less judgmental. The UN is certainly pluralist. But I would also call it "secular" because it calls itself that in many of its own documents and speeches. In other places, it doesn't use the word "secular" explicitly, but makes its intentions clear nonetheless. For example, its charter says _"... _*_without distinction as to_*_ race, sex, language, or _*_religion_*_ ..."_ four times. (Emphasis mine.) And Article 18 of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states: _Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance._ (Presumably, the right to practice _any_ religion includes the right _not_ to practice any religion as well.)
I mean, I get it and charts are fun, that's why we're here. But "Atheism" isn't any kind of doctrine, it just means that you don't believe in any gods. What is the word for people who don't believe in unicorns then? Or ghosts? Or vampires? Or Russell's Teapot? You could go on forever.
Great video, Matt. I downloaded your thesis! Looking forward to reading it (having watch the video series it's based on). ...I was curious how (as some in the comments have pointed out) that you avoided mentioning other sources of organized non- (or anti-) religious thought from other parts of the world, especially several branches of modern philosophy (including several influential figures who inspired organized groups or followings: Socrates, Kant, Marx, Nietzsche, many Consequentialist thinkers like J.S. Mill and Peter Singer). These groups are not "denominations" in the "tongue-in-cheek" sense in which you use the term here, but these "philosophy camps" do provide--for some at least--an ethos for how to live a good life, community, a coherent morality, etc. ...Perhaps some modern forms of Buddhism deserve a nod here too?
I concur by joining atheist, freethinker and humanist in one. I think here in Europe that's the general line of thinking of atheists, the majority of non-religious thought. It's funny for us like in America religious people attack atheists telling them they have no sense of morality, that we are inadequate for distinguishing good from evil. Which is completely absurd.
Sign up for a 14-day free trial of MyHeritage now:
bit.ly/UsefulChartsFeb24
This reminds me of the South Park Special "Go God Go" in which the atheists in the future is at war with each other over what name atheist should call themselves
I’d like to note that “Ajita Kesakambali” (born between 600-500 BCE) would be the first known atheist in human history,. And “Lokāyata” was the first educational Institute to teach atheism.
You missed NT Quakers. But that's ok. Everyone misses us. 😁
Hmm...
@UsefulCharts Did you test the Humanism core beliefs on any religions other than Atheists?
That would be interesting.
To make it clear: A very very small minority are actually members of these organisations. Most os us aren't actively "atheist", we simply are not religious.
Exactly. Most of the organizations listed in the video consisted of a handful of people who were explicitly not trying to create something akin to a religious movement. Even the the larger groups mentioned in this video max out in the tens of thousands, compared to actual religions which consist of millions and millions. Treating those two as analogous, even despite all their other differences, is very bizarre to me. This video comes across as misleading.
He has successfully tricked you into thinking that atheists are religious about their beliefs and therefore distance yourself from its usage. Note that what atheists believe can change (except the fact that the Abrahamic God does not exist). A born again Jew will not. Classic you are no better than us begrudging acknowledgement.
imagine having to declare myself something, because other people live their lives around fairy tales.
@@paladro Matt Baker swiftly deleting comments that are adverse to his world view. 🥴 Very PhD academic in Religious Studies of him.
@@Yordleton these organization are important though, because since we live in a world that is clearly not secular, people that don't hold a religious beliefs needs to be protected, and they are the ones putting their foot down to defend secularism against religious groups and leaders.
Two comments based on the objections I'm seeing so far:
1. "But most atheists don't belong to one of these organizations". True, but keep in mind that many Christians don't go to church either. The parallel is not perfect but like I said at the beginning, this video is a bit tongue and cheek. Also, thinkers associated with these atheist organizations have had a tremendous impact on atheist "culture". The average atheist often relies on certain phrases and arguments that can in fact be traced back to individuals associated with one or more of these organizations.
2. "It's simply not fair to talk about atheists using religious terminology." Well, the thing is: Religion is a horrible term all around. And almost every religious group has at one time or another said, "We're not really a religion but rather a ___" or "But our group stands out as unique because ___". So, in this sense, ironically, not wanting to be lumped together with religions makes atheism kinda like a religion!
3. "This video is Anglo-centric". Yeah, sorry about that. For this episode, because of time constraints, I had to limit myself somehow. I went with US/UK organizations because that represents the largest chunk of my viewership.
No! You have fans from all over.
Btw it seems there's a new crop of atheists post "New Atheists" who are more chill.
And I recomend Nick Spencer's book "Atheists - The Origin of the Species" to anyone who want to go deeper, past organizations and into history, philosophy. And about state-atheism in the Soviet Union, eastern Europe China. But that's 298 pages, not a graph and a 25 min video.
This was great for what it is.
Love fr Malmö, Sweden
I luv you ❤ don’t forget to lock the doors in your house 😘
2. Was worded weirdly and quite confusing
@@johanmalm8378 "No! You have fans from all over." Which is why he wrote that his audience is *PRIMARILY* American, not "only" American.
@@RonJohn63 Hey you don't have to yell
Dr. Baker, as an atheist and Humanist Celebrant, there are about 20,000 nitpicks I could write in this comment section, but I'll limit it to a single one that hit me most strongly.
In my local American Humanist Association chapter (of which I am a board member), we have religious folks. They believe in their gods, but they dont rely on the gods to make the world better. We even have Christian members!
At any rate, it's wonder that you took this on, and I'm glad to see these conversations taking place. I love your work and i have 4 of your charts on my wall, and I'll have a couple more later this year. My wife already knows what i want for my birthday! Bible & History charts from Usefulcharts!!!
I appreciate you pointing this out. As an atheist, I have been able to find common ground with humanist of the theistic variety. They exist and can be Christian, Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Pagan, etc.
If that was missed I now wonder about Dr. Baker's point on testing atheists for humanist values. You could probably find people all over the religious spectrum who will agree with some aspect of humanism. This is a result of a relatively progressive, liberal, or democratic society.
@@violetsonja5938 about the only disagreements you would expect to find between average christians and average humanists concern the existence or otherwise of a god. Most of the generic remainder is pretty easy to agree with, like being nice to people and helping the less fortunate. The problems start to arise when the belief in that god starts to inform other aspects of the public realm, like what books should be banned, or who has control over your bodily autonomy.
Regarding the Christians, that which I am, I think that the humanist view is right to a certain extent. My view, which I think I can speak for all Christians on this one, is that God has given us this earth, or made us the stewards of this earth, and thus we should protect and preserve it. Yes, for the betterment of humans, but because God has assigned humans over all His creation. Hope this helps in any way
I have very similar feedback regarding agnostic, as I consider myself an agnostic theist. Agnosticism is a discussion on whether or not we can know something. But God, by definition, exists outside our observable universe, so it's not possible to «know». One can only «believe», thus leading to «faith». The big thing I like to point out here, is that, for the same reasons, agnostic atheists also must have «faith» in the non-existence of God. It's a faith-based position either way, because we cannot ever know the true answer. At least not in this existence.
@@jdmichal A few questions:
1. How do you KNOW a god exists outside the observable universe? There are theists who disagree. It doesn't seem fair to them to assume a god cannot exist in the universe as a default.
2. I am an agnostic atheist. I do not assert that a god cannot exist, I am unconvinced that one exists. I both don't know if a god exists or if it can be known (since there are a lot of concepts of gods including some I have not yet encountered) and don't have faith that a god does or does not exist. What other word would you have for that position?
Disappointed by the lack of Flying Spaghetti Monster.
And Satanism? Drew Mchoy (Genetically Modified Skeptic) did a better job in this regard.
They were lumped with the “others” in the theist category 😂 along with Jediism.
But aren't they believers? Now curious if they have a consensus about their beliefs, humanist humorists...
@@bhatkat The old ones do not actually believe in it but enjoy the lampooning very much.
The danger is... let me put it this way: There is guy i know (the guy is not me) that happend to be a member and left, he is a father and used to bring his kids to the events and they enjoyed it very much but for them it was real, like REAL REAL ... just like kids that get taken to church on the regular.
Kids cant process the whole thing and he was concerned that it could lead to Pastfari-taliban in the worst case.
So he put the noodle strainer back in the kitchen.
Considering how litte time it took for christanity from the first sprouts to the destruction of the antiquity by overzealous believers its not far fetched.
@@bhatkat I'm a believer. I believer that there is no god. I believe that Trump does not look like Elvis Presley. I believe that Putin is a murderous thug. Etc.
I didn't expect to hear Religion for Breakfast reading the Humanist Manifesto
I believe Andrew falls into this category. He is secular as far as I can tell.
@@andrewc1205 It was just a fun crossover that isn't mentioned anywhere in the video.
@@JakeHalsallIsGreat surprise, I guess
This isn't RFB. Also, why would it be surprising if RFB did that? Sounds very much on-brand to me.
@@metsfan1873RFB read that part of this video.
I would complain about nihilists not being included, but it wouldn't matter anyways
Nice marmot
Nihilism isn't a "denomination" of atheism. Nihilism is a philosophical view which anyone could have, including religious people. And nihilists are those who accept the notion that life is meaningless and cruel. And some even have different responses to nihilism.
Absurdist would accept nihilism in an enthusiastic way or couldn't care less about it (like me)
Existentialist would also accept but still somehow belief everyone have their own meaning that they can set forth (i.e optimistic nihilist)
Pessimistic Nihilist (True Nihilism) those who accept nihilism and seek it's goal which is total destruction
@@PolitictalDipsit same applies to many of the other supposed "denominations". Either accept the premise or dont, your choice, it doesnt matter anyways :^)
@@PolitictalDipsit
Whoosh 😂
@@PolitictalDipsit existentialists dont agree with nihilism, they think meaning truly does exist its just subjective, nihilists believe there is no meaning at all, optimistic nihilism is pretty much absurdism but the major difference is that absurdism doesnt believe in human reason as the determining factor for how we find meaning, it argues that the world is just absurd so us trying to use human reason is useless, so we should just rebel. Its not a very convincing argument, as its whole justification is rooted in that, "the world is absurd" but it doesn't really explain how its absurd in a way that means we cant use human reason to deduct value
It's sound very strange to me (a continental european) that the socialist (marxian-leninist in particular) tradition is not cited, since it is an important reason for the diffusion of atheism in eastern bloc and continental europe
It's pretty bizarre for state atheism not be mentioned at all in a video about atheism, I agree.
@@Yordleton Yeah, I suspect that the largest population of atheists in the world lives in China.
as an insular european and an atheist anarcho-communist, i agree c:
Marxist-Leninist* Marxian is a term reserved for the economic school associated with Marx
@@truedarklander you are right, as an economist i think it's now a matter of habit
For East Asian (Taiwanese), the word "Atheist" is so hard to understand in our social context. For us the question of "Are you an Atheist?" is just like "Are you superstition". Calling people believing in Feng shui atheist is just very weird to us. And to us, we usually ask whether a God is "useful" not caring whether it "exists or not". Religion is viewed in a very practical standpoint.
People who believe in Feng Shui cannot be atheists. Indeed, didn't it derive from Daoism? In any event it is a form of mysticism.
This guy, here, ("Useful Charts"), is attempting to classify "atheist" by their social associations. For example, Satanists are clearly not atheists.
@@retiredbore378 well, it's a fact western thought dominates the whole world, so it's easy for westerners to think that goes for every aspect of life (which it obviously doesn't)
But yes, they wear our clothes, use our tech, eat our food, play our music, etc etc much more than the other way around. You see a Tokio orchestra play Beethoven, Chinese wear Levis, Egyptians play football and South Africans eat Kentucky Fried Chicken (there are 30 KFC's in Johannesburg)
You don't see people in Paris or Berlin wear traditional kimonos or play the Dutar (traditional string instrument of central Asia)
@@Blackadder75lol I literally ate KFC week and I live in South Africa 😂
Do you hold beliefs about anything., or is everything a matter of pragmatism? If you do hold beliefs, do you care whether those beliefs are true? Can an untrue belief actually be useful? It could help you reach a decision, but does it help you make better decisions?
@@PeerAdder The most commom dialogue in Taiwanese society on religion is "Is THIS god effective?" and it is exactly the same question we will ask when it comes to medicine "Is this medicine effective?"
So the trust in gods (or other supersious practice) is very pragmatic. We also don't need to believe in a lot of doctrine when we are worthshiping (or asking for gods help.) Like medicine, no one will debate whether it "exist" or whether is is "true". The only important thing is whether you belive the medicine will be effective on yourself.
So for our society the moral code or what belief we hold mainly come from family, education, cultural tradition. Generally speaking it does not come from GOD (religion).
Quick correction: the word « secular » is actually much, much older, as it can be found as early as the 13th century, with more or less the same meaning.
Do you have such a fun fact like this about the word laicism
"Secular" originated from within the Church, in the sense that secular clergy, as opposed to regular clergy, have not taken the monastic vows.
@@truedarklander sure: "laïc" is attested in French since the 15th century. Because of course the French.
@@truedarklander "Lay" (as opposed to "clerical") is attested by the OED from the 1330s. "Laicism" is dated 1796
rw3899 is correct...the word "secular" (like much of what defines atheism) had religious origins first.
It was interesting learning about these groups, but as a non-religious person, I've not heard of any of them. To me the whole point of being atheist/agnostic/humanist/freethinking is that you don't follow a single book or manifesto, and you don't have to meet up with other atheists every weekend.
Precisely.
Don't have to, but we humans are social creatures. Hence, established communities; also every "branch" organization on this chart have there own mandates.
- FFRF is more of a legal org, representing non-religious or religious pluralism
- The Satanist movement is more like the grass-roots "anarchist" protest banner when religion(s) decide to encroach on other people's rights.
- International Atheist/Humanist Orgs and the CFI are UN umbrella organizations.
Yep, that's pretty much how I feel about it. I can't help but feel so many of these social media crusades by "leading atheists" usually turn out to be veiled publicity for whatever book, course, video or club they're hoping to make money from.
The thing is, unless you happen to be a philosophical and ethical savant, you aren’t probably inventing entirely new ideas about how things work or what life means. And you can’t escape the cascade of influences and ideas which have eventually lead to what you’ve been exposed to. Which means you will inadvertently fall into one of several possible general categories, with some exceptions and variants of course. Deciding not to follow what you think is an organized following doesn’t mean you don’t actually fall into a group.
To be fair most of these organizations aren’t that type of organization. Most are advocacy, educational, or charity groups. My local humanist organization meets a couple times a month to do anything from community service and charity efforts, to having an expert speaker talk about a contemporary issue, to simply having a lunch together. While they do affirm aspects of the various manifestos, it isn’t dogma, it’s more like advertising. If you’re the type of person who agrees with those things you might enjoy that group of people and what they’re about.
I LOVE hearing about your PhD research! It's so fascinating! I'll definitely check out your dissertation!
The same argument could be made to show a Catholic is actually a Protestant! This is FALSE.
@@matildagrobhinde383Yes, causality is a bitch. People who like pineapple on their pizza can be shown to have humanist "beliefs" as well.
As someone who is firmly on the non-religious side of the room, I thank you, Mr. Baker very much for yet another informative video!
I ain’t gonna lie this was the last thing I expected. But I’m glad you’re covering this, good to know
I dont think anyone was expecting this vid
it's pretty closely related to his PhD thesis so it's not completely out of left field
@@JustinLe - What was that? "I don't understand atheism at all"?
@@MossyMozart I'm not sure what you are trying to say, but I'm addressing the fact that this video coming out on this channel is not that surprising, because the creator has often talked about this topic in many other videos and also did his entire doctoral thesis on it.
Huh?
100% agree with your PHD Thesis, I downloaded it. Keep the good work
I think he draws conclusions that are pretty obvious to those of us in the atheist community. No surprises.
I appreciate the respectful handling of controversial topics like atheist creed/denominations. I always appreciate your work.
07:46 It's "Origin of Species" (plural species), not "Origin of the Species". The plural helps to reinforce the point that our origin is shared with the other species with whom we share common ancestry (i.e., all of them).
I'm not sure that Number was the category that was confused here: "The species" can also be plural.
Rather it was whether or not there should be a definite article before a definite noun, which is honestly a bit confusing in English for a non-native speaker such as myself, but you *can* have a definite noun such as "nature" or "species" as in this case, which don't need articles and are almost treated like proper nouns. Kind of the same way that "God" works, even though that has fully shifted to a name.
In Danish, we call the book "Arternes oprindelse", lit. "The species' origin" as we cannot have a definite noun without a definite marker.
Full title is "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"
@@rasmusn.e.m1064Origin of Species basically means "how new species originate" while Origin of the Species implies a particular species, widely interpreted by anti-evolutionists and others as "how humans originated", a much more emotionally charged issue. Darwin intended the former meaning.
@@b.a.erlebacher1139 I honestly didn't know that that was a widely held misconception. I suppose that is why you folks would react the way you did to that, but I was just saying that 'the species' doesn't have to imply a singular species. It could literally (as it does in most languages that have a definite/indefinite distinction) just refer to all species, ie. 'the species (of the earth), whereas 'the origin of species' could also imply that the scope is only some species and not all of them because it looks like an indefinite plural. I suppose that is a conventional implicature that is peculiar to English speakers and one I'll have to learn to live with.
@@rasmusn.e.m1064 In terms of ambiguity, "the species" can be singular ("one particular species") or plural ("all the species that exist"), while without the indefinite article it tends to imply an indefinite plural ("some species" rather than "a species" -- singular would require the latter).
In terms of popular misconceptions -- here in the US there have for decades been people insisting (and spreading the misinformation) that Darwin's most famous book was devoted entirely to claiming human descent from apes (and no, not saying "having a common ancestor with" isn't a misrepresentation of the creationist/anti-"Darwinist" faction here -- they still insist that evolution by natural selection actually means one currently-existing species being the ancestor of another).
I like the explanation. Learned a lot. As a Christian I'm open /interested in how other ideologies are formed, especially the ones that oppose my own. If I know how someone else thinks I can understand them, not to convince someone or let me be convinced but to understand and habe a proper dialogue (a real one).
Honestly as an atheist I respect the hell out of that. It's all too easy to make assumptions about religious people based on the worst examples and comments like this help refresh my pallet from bias. I appreciate the open mindedness.
For me I cant believe in something that have no evidence that is not fallacious.
Jacob, do you realise that with the term 'oppose' you bring in 'right' vs 'wrong'? I'm not opposed to any belief, but keep in mind that 'believe' is accepting something without (sound/scientific/repeatable) proof. I do not believe, and I do not find any proof for a god. I'm not against any belief.
I'm against almost any religious organisation, as they tend to find it acceptable to impose their worldview on others. And without proof that is a problem. The existence of a god is an extraordinary claim, so it needs extraordinary proof.
In short, I do NOT oppose your belief. I do oppose it when your belief gets out of the private/personal world. The only exception I'm willing to make is for Santa Claus / Sint Nicolaas. And yes, if you teach your children to believe, you surpass my threshold of imposing on others.
Same, im dying on my hill but yours is interesting.
@@manga_accurate_angel welp your pallet must have been strongly influenced, bc this is how basically every christian I know goes on about it. I guess most atheists are shown only extreme and negative cases of christians and take that as what christians tend to be like. hope u get what I mean
That ReligionForBreakfast jump scare at 12:20 lol
It caught my ear, too. I immediately recognized his voice and did a bit of a double take.
Yeah caught me out had to check my app to make sure I was watching the same video
Thanks for warning
I wanna start by saying that this is a good video, and while I appreciate the attention to and exploration of atheism/agnosticism, I think it's kind of incorrect to present it like this. While a Christian, Muslim, Jewish person, or Buddhist will generally ascribe themselves to specific denominations, sects, or traditions, most non-religious people arrive at their conclusions independently and don't consider themselves to belong to a specific organizational "tradition" of atheism. For example, I was an atheist before I'd ever heard of Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that while most theists belong to longstanding religious traditions , most atheists don't associate with any of the organizations in the video. There are lots of Christians who, for example, identify with Pentecostalism, Muslims with Shi'ism, Jewish people with reformism, Buddhists with Therevada, etc, but comparatively few non-religious people identify with any of the organizations in this video. But I guess all of these labels are applied from the outside looking in.
In any case, it's still an interesting and informative video.
Yeah, I think looking at other philosophical and ethical traditions associated with atheism would have been a lot more useful and effective. There are dozens more groups.
And there are some athiest organizations that actively have members or associated people who train in ethics, thinking, or other things that they think are valuable or necessary>
Like there is the new "rationalists" Which have become a significant community online and even has a decent number of meetings in which normal people participate.
It fits into the wider cultural/ideological space of those who are really concerned about AI safety while simultaneously looking forward to a liberation from the world's problems from AI.
The obeservation that most athiests philosophically have a humanist worldview is notable.
However,
To an extent there are other philosophical thought leaders in atheism or other philosophical movements that can have very cult-like followings even.
Bravo. My thoughts exactly.
Vast majority (if not all) of self-described "atheist" I know (which admitedly is not that many, maybe only 7-8 people) actually agree with humanism and free-thinker-ism/skepticism.
They all only believe in natural and observeable/perceivable world/reality, and in what they consider as natural/humanist ethics.
Point is, even if you never think about these values, if you agree with those them, you can be associated with them.
On the other hand, there are atheists (and also theists) who lived a highly hedonistic and opportunistic way of life. These are self-righteous a-holes who don't seem to believe in humanism nor the general well-being of the society.
I know someone who lived a crazy wild life and didn't seems to have any shred of remorse till the very end of his life. He did not believe in god or religion, so I suppose he believe that life is nothing more than a "game" or whatever.
Even so, I think we can still categorize these type of people as "hedonists" or "anarchists".
Thank you. I think these labels do a disservice to atheists.
Yes, people like to complicate atheism/agnosticism.
I think one thing to keep in mind is that, while religious denominations are exclusive and necessarily negate or contradict one another on some level, people can occupy more than one “denomination” on this list. In order of importance, I am a:
Humanist (who to prioritize in society)
Skeptic (how to think about the world)
Secularist (how society should be organized)
Freethinker (who should tell me what to think)
Agnostic (what I know about gods)
Atheist (what I believe about gods)
“Denominations” works for cladistic classification of ideas (i.e. ideas that are distinct but share a common lineage) but it doesn’t work for classification of the ideas in this video because they’re not mutually exclusive 🙂
You distinguish agnosticism from atheism in a way that is new to me. I have never identified as “agnostic,” regarding it as a way for atheists to avoid arguments with their family and neighbors. (That itself now no longer seems like such a bad thing to me.)
I can’t identify primarily as “atheist” because I refuse to think of or state my deepest principles by a negative. It has been decades since I have seriously considered theology as part of my world view at all.
I now identify with “religious naturalism”; religious because I do experience awe and transcendence as these states are traditionally understood. I have had these experiences since childhood, sometimes but not exclusively at Mass; in adulthood, commonly in forest environments. The odors of a forest floor can trigger transcendence.
I have belonged to the Unitarian Universalist denomination for 20+ years now. In that context, I have often heard the terms “humanist” and “secular humanist,” but humanity is not the main focus of my religious thought.
@@MMG-q1v Love this. I wish I didn’t have to identify myself with a negative either. But the fact of the matter is I am a citizen of a society in which, when I move to a new location, “What church do you go to?” is a common introduction. Unfortunately, to these people and other people who want to legislate laws based on their religious convictions, I have to be the one in the room to say, “What if we made rules, not based on books or ideologies, but on the common prosperity of us all?”
@@ThomasO2 I suggest you add “Love your neighbor as yourself, as Jesus said” at the end.
@@MMG-q1v That would be more politically advantageous for sure. I agree with the sentiment but not because Jesus said it. It’s because it’s a good idea, regardless of who said it 🙂
@@ThomasO2 It is not clear to me that Jesus said it; there has been active scholarly debate for years now about whether”Jesus” ever existed. It does allow people to leave the conversation feeling certain that I am sufficiently pious, though.
You missed the part about Anton LaVey getting his ideas from Ayn Rand. The Church of Satan barrowed a lot of ideas from Objectivism, which should probably be included on this chart.
It was a pretty big omission to not mention Ayn Rand. She's a pretty historically significant atheist.
@@TheKraken5360wasn't she Catholic?
@@agnusdeiquitollispecatamundi Nope, she was born to a Jewish family in St. Petersburg as it was known at the time, but she was an avowed Atheist. So if she would have believed in god, it would have likely been as a Jew not christian, and even if she converted to Christianity, she would have then been a messianic Jew or a Russian Orthodox. Russia had basically no Catholics.
And a half-understood smattering of Thelema. Most of what he didn't crib from Rand he did from Crowley and figured "Do what thou wilt" essentially meant "Do whatever you damn well please."
That and the ritual magic thing.
TIL. Thanks for this. It would have been nice to have been in the video.
I thought a lot could have been added to the Hinduism video as well. But, it's difficult to pin down all the various sects and branchings in something so vast as this series. I think the Christianity one was so impressive in depth, that it made the others feel disappointingly sparse.
I’m surprised the French Revolution and freemasonry wasn’t discussed more. Even though it’s more deistic stuff, I think it’s highly relevant to discussions of the lead up to modern atheism.
I would love those this kind of chart, but for Neo-Pagan groups. It would be so cool to see it starting in PIE era and ending with various modern pagan groups
Modern paganism doesn't really have continuity with ancient paganism though, it's just inspired by it.
@@Dorgpoop while that is true, there are certainly different paths that could be given this treatment, such as tribal animism and Yzidis. However, the others could just as easily be given a dotted line right through the last few hundred/thousand years to modern interpretations.
That'd be neat
@@Dorgpoop Most of what I hear and read suggests that's true. However, it seems that many other modern religions claim continuity with older religious or theologies that they may not have continuity with either. Matt has presented the concept of a break between myth and legend and history, and I wonder if this model is applicable in the same way. Or should we segregate religions that have demonstrated continuity since some arbitrary point in history from newer religious movements that either don't claim ancient links or can't prove them?
@@user-zt1gg6iu5ihow so? Unless-as I suspect you’re doing-you’re just using “paganism” as a snarky and dismissive pejorative to describe atheists, I’d like to know where you come from with this comment.
I’m an atheist and I remember hearing someone wanting to insult someone else by calling them something like “An Atheist advocating for Voltaire’s ideas”. I thought to myself “Is that an insult or did he just describe me and basically my entire general community”. Growing up in the Nordic countries you never think of yourself, your family or friends as atheists, it’s just being a regular person.
As a 62 year old lifelong athiest, this was very informative and useful. I have contributed to a few of the organizations over the years but don't normally join groups. Part of the reason for this is that I just didn't really undertsand the differences between them. This video helps with that. Thank you.
I respectfully suggest that the way to understand how these various world views are similar and different would be to participate in one, or two, or several (not all at once). You say you are “not a joiner.” I would never question your perception of yourself, of course. I am a joiner, always have been and apparently always will be. As a religious naturalist, it seems obvious to me that the talking ape (Home sapiens) thinks and acts most effectively and positively in sociality.
@@MMG-q1v My interest is in understanding which is more likely to do be doing effective work against organized religion. The current Christian Nationalist surge is very troubling and I'd like to know which organization I should support financially. I have only "joined" groups in order to donate to them. I don't actively participate by attending events to socialize. I get plenty of socialization opportunities elsewhere.
@@Area_Man I am perhaps overly optimistic in thinking that the Christian Nationalist surge is blowing up religious “conservatism” as it calls itself. Organized religious naturalism would be fine with me. I would like to have a role in organizing a religious naturalist group in my own UU congregation. This video gave me a lot of information I think I could use on that mission.
@@Area_Man "troubling" is the lack of awareness that atheism is a darwin award, while being so lacking in skepticism the msm talking point of the day guides them like sheep.
@@churblefurbles Thanks for that talking-point word salad. I just wanted to leave a kind comment on a video I enjoyed. Sorry if I triggered you.
I know this video is more about general schools of thought and philosiphies, but to make the hopefully obvious point- Atheism doesn't work like religion. To be an atheist you don't need to follow the teachings of someone or a book that has all the knowledge. Being an atheist just means not believing in any religion. And before anyone tries to say the dumbest sentence ever- no, science is not a religion. Science is a method to discovering facts, and so you can not listen to any scientist and completely ignore all science books, and you'd still come to the same conclusions as scientists have, if you just follow the scientific method.
You beat me to the that tired point. It's exhausting to explain that science is not a religion
@@Charles-js3ri if people act around it like it is one, then a recognition of this fact should not be discarded. And yes, there are a lot of atheists, who have made their particular favorite scientific view a religion, not allowing any challenge to it and acting quite fanatically about it. And the whole point of the scientific method is that challenge is not just allowed but welcomed, which showcases that they don't treat science as a tool, but as a religion.
not a day goes by that I don't see a nonsense claim made by representatives of ''science'' with dogmatic followers claiming it's true because ''the science says so'', covid was a real wake up call to most people, seeing how corrupt most of science is and how often they lie to benefit themselves.
it's a real problem, it's eroding trust in science and the scientific method with the general public, in a rational society, the scientists who make wild, bold and inaccurate claims should be stripped of their degrees and potentially face prison time for having done damage to society on poor data and corruption to interests groups like pharma companies, this practice is now so widespread that a significant size of the population now mistrusts scientists and ''experts''
we must restore scientific, academic standards and hold people responsable, we won't as a society but we really should, perhaps the next generations will have to deal with that.@@Charles-js3ri
not a day goes by that I don't see a nonsense claim made by representatives of ''science'' with dogmatic followers claiming it's true because ''the science says so'',
was a real wake up call to most people, seeing how corrupt most of science is and how often they lie to benefit themselves. it's a real problem
As an atheist I have never read a manifesto of atheists in my life but I probably naturally share common thoughts regarding the world and the supernatural. Therefore I do not follow a creed or manifesto or somebody else’s definition of an atheist. I have come to my own conclusions and I believe many others have too.
@bubbles581 But most actual Atheist or non believers have reach their current POV not because any direct or indirect involment with any of the rather niche and esoteric groups posted in this chart... they just use mainstream science, philosophy, culture and politics as a base for their world views (surely not Satanist propaganda).
If some one make a chart of Christian denominations that only include Mormons, Amish, and Anabaptist... making sure to make several remarks about the weirdsness and criminal actitivities of individuals in this groups, but somehow didnt mention Chatolicism, Luteran or Orthodox Churches... Im pretty sure people will find that way of doing things rather partial.
@bubbles581 People hardly have any concept of how far 1 mile is, let alone 100 million miles. You can still observe that the sun is further away than planes, clouds, satellites, and the moon (which, itself, is so much further away than it seems to be). You can observe that the sun is far away without learning of any exact distance and still conclude that it is far away without having been taught that by "society."
Your ideas are someone else's Ideas.
The meticulous detailing of historical timelines and exploration of major religions on this channel is both captivating and educational. Keep up the great work!
Three pieces of feedback:
I'm with others that perhaps a little more emphasis that these organisations constitute very much a minority of Atheists, and I think the "but most Christians don't go to church" analogy is a little flawed - physically going to church doesn't place you outside of a denomination, per "religion" as opposed to just "theist" there's a somewhat organised set of beliefs, so a non-church-going Anglican is very much a thing. A better comparison to that would be there is the weak/strong implicit/explicit atheists division. - This is not to say that looking at these organisations and how they evolved is bad, but just a little more emphasis would probably have been a good thing.
That said, I think your move of addressing Ontology / Epistemology / Ethics and those different currents in Atheism is a good move.
I also think the inclusion of Satanists is a very good move, although I'd contend that a fifth category, perhaps 'Satirical' would have been a good move. There's a number of notable atheist organisations who effectively protest and challenge religion in a very serious sense, but through satirising them more. (A certain airborne Italian dish comes to mind as one well known, but not the only, example).
the fact that people go to a certain church doesn't make them that denomination. the truth is christians especially now aren't in boxes, and so many (most) christians fully believe because of free thought and reflection, as opposed to tradition. I like many christians am not part of any denomination, and probably have no denomination that sets to believe everything I do.
Get what I mean? So yes, that argument is flawed but only because your church doesn't define your denomination anyway.
@@danieljohn4014 This depends on if you are using the wider religious usage of "denomination" or the narrower usage of "denomination" which also only appears in Christianity.
The narrower Christian usage does define a denomination as all churches of the same kind (what counts as that, be it same leadership, similar enough theological doctrine, etc. is more complicated).
The wider usage is any large subgroup within a religion, for instance the branches of Judaism may be termed as denominations, or the various Madhhab may be termed as such, likewise the various Hindu movements/traditions.
Likewise, the broader definition can still be applied to Christianity. Someone who follows Catholic traditions and teachings, but doesn't attend church, may still be termed a Catholic.
Furthermore, while more personal variation in theology may exist in Christianity today, and more Christians today may not attend church as regularly as in the past, the Churches are still vastly larger than the Atheist organisations, and those formal Atheist organisations have never been huge, even in the past.
The Principia Discordia deserves more attention than it gets, really.
I would think these organisation represent political atheists.
It feeds into the US apologetic notion of "Atheism" as a belief system, and "Atheists do this, or think that".
I find it annoying tbh.
Unfortunately even these organisations get hijacked from within by special interest. Thunderf00t has a story from years ago as to why he opted out of an "official" organisation.
While I agree most atheist don't follow these organizations (at least most the one's I've met), unfortunately some people do try to turn atheism into a defacto religion, in that they will construct a belief based worldview & ethical system and then act in a manner similar to a devout religious person (and it's not an insignificant number of people). So for example:
1)Faith: I have seen some atheists simply believe a statement without any further investigation or curiosity, simply because the presenter had a PHD or a "study" was mentioned (without actually reading the study or even the abstract). For example, had a coworker start drinking beer before bed because a news report mentioned a study claiming it's health benefits, he just believed it without question.
2)Higher Power: Some seem to view progress/technology as a higher power, insofar as they see it as an inevitable or unstoppable force that will fix everything or even turn into literal AI-Gods who will determine our fate.
3)Heaven: some see atheism as the key to a technological Star Trek wonderland or even a way to transcend into pure energy (Seth McFarlane seems to have this view), even though the scientific method isn't necessarily dependent on atheism.
4)Forced conversion: I've been in institutions were they will attempt to block religious things (gathering, symbols, etc) while force mandatory attendance to "scientific" lectures (essentially new-atheism type stuff) or even require the writing of pro-atheist statements (one was: "write why astrology is bad for individuals and society"). Although the irony is both times they got hammered by social justice types.
5)theres more examples I could give, but it's getting to long.
Your first video on atheists (where you discuss your dissertation) brought me here. Now it's come full circle, and I enjoyed the ride. I definitely intend to continue, see where these charts take me.
next video should be about autism denominations
@@mahatmaniggandhi2898 mental health? I'm all for it.
Another great chart. You could also make them digital, so we can click on them to get some of the details in your videos. Thanks for your continued work!!
I always liked how in the South Park episode Poor Kid Kenny's guardians are named Mr. & Mrs. Weatherhead after Reverend Weatherhead who popularised the sect of agnostism
I wasn't expecting this, but I'm glad you included this. It really highlights that philosophy and the question of why we exist is something shared by both the religious and non-religious.
religion is dogmatic thought control, not the search for meaning.
That does not mean that they should be studied with the same lens though.
Why? @@Yordleton
@@erdood3235 Because religion is not based on evidence, it is based on blind trust which makes it rigid and dogmatic, while science is a self-correcting method.
@@Davidsasz1239 right, but everyone has beliefs and philosophical thoughts, while we should never compare religious claims to scientific claims, we can absolutely compare the experience of people whether they're religious or not and how they deal with life's tough questions. Religious or not we're all people and we all have subjective Interpretations and experiences, and my experience with X is not more or less valid than someone else's. Now, for state policy and the like we can all agree that the more secular, the better, and that no ancient text should dictate whether somebody deserves human dignity and civil rights. But the video is specifically about atheistic schools of thought and organizations through history.
No mention of Atheism Plus by Jey McCreight? They represent a woman led, anti racist, anti sexist coalition of atheists who received huge critique by skeptic and New Atheist communities. This characterized atheism for much of the 2010s and still is probably the biggest split (progressive atheists who align with humanism and Atheism Plus vs other groups). They definitely deserve a shout-out
Atheism+ wasn’t very long-lived, principally on account that as atheists with an interest in humanism, many of us were swiftly and horribly disillusioned by the contrary reaction of movement atheism, which largely wanted a kind of atheism devoid of any self-reflection on humanistic ideals and ethics, and rebelled at aiming self-criticism at their own ethical practices before attempting to criticise others.
Now to be fair to Dr Baker, at the outset he says (correctly) that most atheists who might identify as such also tend to be freethinkers and humanists, but it was the experience of this Atheist+ member that there are just as many who only paid lip service to humanism, and this attitude extended some of to the organisations represented in the chart, which makes it sort of worthless as showing delineations of schools of (free)thought.
I know Dr Baker was trying to pitch this chart as a slightly humorous take, but if the humour falls flat (and it sort of did for me, having lived through the period of disillusionment with many of these atheist organisations) then the impression comes across as cynical and glib. This is a mere organisation chart, not a map of schools of thought.
One decent-sized quibble I have here, although less with the taxonomy itself (I actually really like this video a lot!) than a particular oversight early on, is that there is a very significant tradition of atheistic antihumanism in the West, particularly in the various schools of Continental philosophy but also in certain strains of analytic philosophy. That said, secular humanists are far more likely to found organisations specifically devoted to the propagation of secular humanism than, say, structural Marxists, positivist sociologists, deep ecologists, dialectical egoists or pessimist antinatalists are to found their own organisations dedicated entirely to their rejection of both religion and traditional humanism, although the latter are certainly likely to form groups, formal or otherwise, with those perspectives baked into their core unifying principles. That being said, a genealogy of either post-Enlightenment European philosophy or left-wing political philosophy would probably rectify the better part of that discrepancy. :P
We should explore your idea that specifies anti-humanistic atheism. Anti-natalists are not non-religious by definition, but also found to be religious including some: Buddhists, Taoists, Christians and Gnostics; Dialectical Egoists was a term coined by Sterner and anarchists to attack Humanism but especially Communism, the term seems to describe narcissists well (anarchism, nor communism are inherently non-religious).
Arne Næss was a Norwegian philosopher who coined the term "deep ecology", making clear that he felt the real motivation to 'free nature' was spiritual and intuitive. 'Your motivation comes from your total view or your philosophical, religious opinions'; it does not exclude the religious whereas "non-religious" specifics it is NOT religious; deep ecology does not exclude those with religious claims.
Positive socialists also do not exclude the religious, however I would agree that many affirmed atheists lean toward the scientific method as a way of knowing (ontology)and that many representations, in the chart above, claim this philosophy. Structural Marxism is a political theory and not a stance on god or religion either; there are Right leaning atheists, but I have heard of no Right-leaning atheist organizations.
Humanism started as a self proclaimed religious movement, that morphed into a Secular one. Humanism also does not exclude the religious, so perhaps should not be viewed as atheistic. Most of the disagreements here seem to stem from different political or ontological positions. (Ontology having the merit of being able to peg down an atheist.)
Whereas Humanism eventually merged or morphed more generally into atheist movements, anarchists and anti-communists did not. Perhaps this latter non-conformist needs a better look: Neo-liberalism and Anarchism come to mind.
@@rychei5393 Whether or not some of the beliefs encompassed by these terms may be ascribed to by religious or vaguely spiritual people is sort of irrelevant, particularly given the context in which I am speaking here; with the exception of deep ecology, where another strain of hard green thought probably would have been more appropriate given the often slightly mystical tenor of that tendency, in the context of the history of "Western" philosophy (the same context as the forms of atheism discussed in the video), pretty much all of these positions are fundamentally associated with atheism and tend to spring from a strict materialist or naturalist position while also denying the core conceits of humanistic philosophy, whether they be specific ethical frameworks, human nature as a fixed thing, or anthropocentrism more generally. But you more broadly seem to be implying that I don't know what these terms actually mean, while also misunderstanding several of them. You confuse sociology with socialism in response to my mention of positivism; you seem to have a pretty superficial understanding of Stirner beyond his amoralism and feud with Marx; it appears that you entirely missed why I might specify structural Marxism, a synthesis of two distinct strains of thought critical of humanism (structuralism and orthodox Marxism); and, although perhaps this is simply me misreading you, you seem to have a very peculiar understanding of what "neoliberalism" is. I can chalk most if not all of these up to argumentativeness and "making a point" rather than complete ignorance, but I do find it rather annoying.
Also, for the record, I am an anarchist myself, albeit not an atheist per se. I am well aware of the history of faith within anarchism as well as the critiques of religion within that milieu. I do not need to be lectured on the history of my own intellectual lineage by someone who describes dialectical egoism as intrinsically anti-communist and antisocial, clearly knowing nothing of Emma Goldman or communisation theory.
@5393 Just so your aware, Satanists are a right leaning atheist organizations. They're libertarian in philosophy, having been birthed from objectivism.
16:02 I feel like this conflates the two different definitions of "creed". In the dictionaries I've checked, it's neatly split into a 50/50 between (def 1) "a set of religious principles" and (def 2) "a set of beliefs that influences the way you live". The definition 2 doesn't have a requirement to keep the set of beliefs constant, but definition 1 assumes the principles are religious and therefore there is a requirement to maintain them. The controversy is defining something as a "creed" on the basis of definition 2 and then treating it according to the definition 1.
Ultimately, it's some abstract semantics so it doesn't matter a lot, but I really couldn't understand the controversy until I rewinded that segment three times and checked the dictionary.
thank you, I was also confused about that, he seemed to be trying to conflate religious creeds with humanist creeds. while they share a name, they are not the same thing. you made it even clearer than I could have put it, didn't even think about checking the dictionary.
I'd argue there is even another difference: Religious creeds are often tied to the specific verbiage used to convey the message, while "a set of beliefs that influences the way you live" doesn't have to be explicitly worded. This doesn't seem like a huge deal on the face of it, but in the act of interpreting words that are already deemed to be correct (because it's a religious creed), you often end up with different interpretations that reflect different implicit beliefs when asking different people. When you just ask different self-proclaimed atheists whether they agree with humanist statements, it's not as if they go "Oh, I know this phrase; that's the one I (dis)agree with!"
They might have shared values, but I'd argue that that is not the same as a creed.
You could compare it to divergent and convergent evolution. A religious creed can have a divergent evolution of values and beliefs associated with that can all be tied back to it, whereas two atheists might believe that God doesn't exist, but that isn't proof in itself that their disbelief comes from the same place (even though they might).
It's not a perfect analogy, but I hope you get the point.
I think that this argument is using the “dictionary fallacy”. Dictionaries do not adjudicate meaning so because Useful Chart’s use of Creed doesn’t necessarily fit a textbook definition it does not mean that his use of Creed wouldn’t be understood by others in the same colloquial way.
The more important thing to note is that whatever definition you use; belief in something doesn't make you a member of that society / group etc... In all "religoon" (and let's assume the premise that "athesim is a religion"), the main aspect is "faith" and membership. You have to be a member of something to be that thing. Most of us do not think much about religion or chuchr, even atheists.
I would say that the entire graph drawn here represents the set of people "who care about spirituality". That is probably 60%. Thus 40% (made up numbers) do not really care or think much about spirituality.
I just wanna point out the fact that agnosticism by itself is not really a non-religious category, because even agnostics can also be religious. There's a non-theistic religion called "unitarian universalism" that allows atheists, deists, agnostics, and pantheists into their congregation. So, therefore, agnosticism is not really synonymous with irreligion.
But i'm also glad that you have mentioned "non-religious theists" in this video, because most people tend to associate non-religious with atheism most of the time. 😎
@UsefulCharts: At 08:03, you state that “[Charles Bradlaugh] was the first person to request to affirm that he would tell the truth rather than taking an oath on a Bible.” This is not correct. The U.S. Constitution - penned 90-odd years before Bradlaugh was elected as MP - refers multiple times to persons taking an Oath or Affirmation. Moreover, the Quakers Act 1695 allows Quakers to substitute an affirmation for an oath in many situations. It is more correct to say that Bradlaugh was the first UK MP to request to substitute an affirmation for the Oath of Allegiance.
Thanks for the correction!
Hey... I'm pretty sure we have atheists and atheist organisations in Europe too. And the rest of the world also. This video is 100% NA-centric. Also the organisations from this video do not represent neither atheism nor atheists. If we are talking about ORGANISATIONS then there are thousands of Christian organisations. Heck. There are thousands of Catholic organisations. So this video is an equivalent of making a family tree of catholic organisations such as Caritas, Opus Dei, Catholic Worker Movement etc etc.
I kept expecting China, the country where more than 40% of the world's atheists live to be mentioned at least once...
And true! This is just as silly as an atheist calling the Salvation Army a denomination.
He said initially that a lot of atheists actually fall in the same line of beliefs as humanism...
Congrats on you PHD!
'Doc' Matt
😻
Love. Love
the Channel !!!!
🙏
I feel the need to point out that while many non-religious people identify as humanist, a lot of theists do, too. Humanism is a worldview, not a theology: the first principle listed in Humanist Manifesto of 1933 states, "Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created." The seventh principle reads, "Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious. It includes labor, art, science, philosophy, love, friendship, recreation--all that is in its degree expressive of intelligently satisfying human living. The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained." The second Humanist Manifesto of 1973 states:
Many kinds of humanism exist in the contemporary world. The varieties and emphases of naturalistic humanism include “scientific,” “ethical,” “democratic,” “religious,” and “Marxist” humanism. Free thought, atheism, agnosticism, skepticism, deism, rationalism, ethical culture, and liberal religion all claim to be heir to the humanist tradition. Humanism traces its roots from ancient China, classical Greece and Rome, through the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, to the scientific revolution of the modern world. But views that merely reject theism are not equivalent to humanism. They lack commitment to the positive belief in the possibilities of human progress and to the values central to it. Many within religious groups, believing in the future of humanism, now claim humanist credentials. Humanism is an ethical process through which we all can move, above and beyond the divisive particulars, heroic personalities, dogmatic creeds, and ritual customs of past religions or their mere negation.
Similarly, the label freethought indicates a worldview that includes both theist and non-theist positions.
As for the difference between weak and strong atheism, this is the distinction I use:
Weak: I do not believe there is a god. (Lack of belief)
Strong: I believe there is no god. (Assertion of lack.)
I wish atheists would stop giving themselves such cringe names. "Freethinkers", "rationalists", and to some extent "skeptics" are _embarrassingly_ arrogant names. I get that it's difficult to come up with a good name for a group defined by what they aren't, but jfc, "freethinkers" is like the worst possible choice.
What often gets lost is the difference between what atheism is vs what many people who are atheists also believe.
To what degree would you estimate the content of what we believe directly counts upon what we hold to be the most important propositions?
@@bankiey I would guess not much. In my experience, people make decisions and then rationalise them post-hoc. I also don't think that lacking belief in gods is thought of as being an important belief by most atheists.
The same can be said of theism with its' many manifestations.
@@mrpocock...lacking belief in a god/gods (a theology) is quite literally what atheism is.
That's like saying the most important part of "atonal music" isn't the fact that it lack a tonal center. I assure you, that is the most (and only) defining characteristic.
@@quinn0517 I was trying to say that atheism may in fact be quite low on the list of things that are important to many atheists.
Absolutely excellent video as always Matt 👏
I'd like to mention, however, that there are self-proclaimed Satanists who are not associated with the Satanists mentioned in this video. They actively practice the worship of Satan. I knew someone who argued that God is not benevolent and is actually the evil-doer, who cast Satan out and that Satan is the one who was looking out humanity, not God.
A possible 'dotted line' to add to the chart is the increasing prevalence of people practicing buddhist meditation (some describing themselves as buddhist and some not) who regard themselves as athiests. In particular I would point to Sam Harris who is a strong proponent of this world view - but in practice there are dozens of meditation centres from 'insight' and vipasspna traditions where the supernatural is entirely stripped away and are actually or defacto athiest. Not all, but a great deal of buddhism in the west is essentially athiest - perhaps in a similar way to athiest unitarianism emerging from christiantiy.
I find myself a little dissatisfied with this video for a few reasons. Firstly, I think a very large percentage of the non-religious community is in China. In fact, I'd bet that the majority of atheists are Chinese. So, its a big omission to not include Chinese schools of thought. I think communist philosophical movements deserved at least a mention.
Also, I think its the case that the majority of non-religious people are not part of an organized movement. You focused on organized groups. But, I think the silent majority of non-religious community are simply people who don't attend any sort of church, and don't view religion as being part of their life. So, by focusing on atheist organizations, you're focusing on a rather small subset of the non-religious community.
In short, the thinks the denominations on US and Canada represent the entire world... 😅💁🏻♂️
Very well done. Super cool. Thanks for making this.
21:39 - no, skepticism isn't new. The skeptical tradition originated in the Hellenistic period of ancient philosophy. After mostly lying dormant through much of the medieval era, it was revived and-to some extent-transformed in early modern philosophy.
So if I understand it correctly, the important differences between Religious denominations v. Atheist "denominations" are:
(1) You can be a member of multiple atheist "denominations" at the same time-without a conflict of interest or beliefs, and without suffering from cognitive dissonance 🤣. Whereas with religions, at any one time, you can be a member of only one denomination (sect) of only one religion.
(2) Atheist "denominations" are not-for-profit organizations and function as such. They have a charter, a constitution, and bye-laws that are created by their human members, and can be modified by the members. Whereas organized religions have a fixed, rigid canon of divine origin that may be interpreted-but not modified-by humans.
(3) You don't need to be a member of any "denomination" or advocacy group to be best described as an atheist, even if your core set of values align with them partially or totally.
" Whereas organized religions have a fixed, rigid canon of divine origin"
Often, but not always. Particularly with many Eastern religions, and there are even a few sects who identify as Christian or Muslim for whom that also holds true.
@@gastonpossel "You don't need to be a member of any "denomination" or advocacy group to be best described as an atheist"
This could also apply for many American Evangelicals who shift denominations and churches constantly or attend several at once, as well as many other groups.
You seem to be generalizing religions based on Christianity. Most religions in history are just fine with a person following many paths. Most religions don’t contradict each other in meaningful ways.
@@gastonpossel This also applies to religion though.
I think there is a case to be made that Anton LaVey was not, strictly speaking, an atheist. Although he was cagey about occult theory, he clearly thought Magick worked somehow. Occult supernaturalism was definitely part of the early Satanic Church, even while, for the most part, the more supernatural faction of the Church left to form the Temple of Set. I think he was a supernaturalist who reveled in his ambiguity around the issue of supernaturalism.
A belief in natural magical is not incompatible with being an atheist.
You know your chart about atheist "denominations" is incredibly americanocentrist when it doesn't feature any of the European movements like the libertines or the cult of reason.
@UsefulCharts PLEASE add Comte's Positivism, it had an American branch, the Church of Humanity, and the original from France, the Religion of Humanity. The Religion of Humanity was one of THE main inspirations for other secular/humanist groups and ethical societies
The fact that reason brings one to conclusions substantially similar to a certain creed does not imply that the person "believes" in the creed, just that they agree with its statements.
I really enjoy your videos, thank you.
@square3356" A lot of atheists have personal atheistic heroes... " .
Do they? The more active and vocal ones probably do, but I am willing to bet the vast majority of atheists don't have any such heroes, just think it's all rubbish.
They are too bust getting on with their lives.
It's funny how you discuss "atheist" being a very strong label that a lot of non-religious folks avoided using in the past. Today, I myself don't self-describe as an atheist for almost the opposite reason: I associate the word too much with Reddit neckbeards who dedicate most of their time online to discussing how stupid religious people are.
yeah fair enough man, I usual don't make a big thing of it and just call myself an agnostic if I am asked
Love the work you do! Thank you!
Forgot the name of it but I'm the type of atheist that basically goes "dudes, first figure your shit out, define it, present it, THEN I'll check it out."
There isn't anything to discuss because they haven't really given us anything to discuss that makes sense.
That's what Matt reffers as Skeptic / Freethinker in the video
Sometimes called igtheism (not ictheism, which would be the worship of fish).
@@qwertyTRiG
Thanks, forgot the term.
I would refer to you as a Non Resistant Non Believer.
It’s called Atheist. “Without a belief in god” because your case is unconvincing.
People want to hide from the word Atheist because of bigotry and ignorance. But it is simple and clear.
I would add "religiously affiliated atheists" to the list. There are a lot of people who are non religious/atheist but have deep cultural ties to the religion they grew up in. I consider myself to fall into that category.
Very common viewpoint among atheists and agnostics in Latin America.
Amazing work! Keep up the good work man :) Love from the TriCities
Perfect way to round out the series - difficult topic to address.
Religious people have a difficult time addressing the topic that atheism isn't a religion and cannot be classified as one in any logically productive sense. Unfortunately this video makes that same mistake.
@@Yordleton exactly.
To be fair he only used the term Atheist to feed the algorithm and the Clickbait, this video is actually about Non-Religious organizations, not atheist individuals.@@Yordleton
as if atheists haven't been misrepresented enough....@@thebrahmnicboy
difficult topic and also very incorrect
atheism is the opposite of theism, so it can't by definition have denominations.
These are not denominations of atheism - these are denominations of spiritualism
UsefulCharts has it wrong, but yeah I don't blame him, it took me ages to figure out what all of those things are...
Shocked, you didn't include the Rationalists, i.e., the big Yud and his crowd.
Yay! 😁 finally a video about my "religion"
I didn't expect this video whatsoever, even though Matt's research was on atheism.
Can I ask what kind of god atheist has? What are spiritual practices and rituals. Btw, TikTok is the biggest religion now. What should we do.
It's important to note that "new atheism" is an exonym, introduced by its detractors.
Yep.
As an atheist, I shudder at the term "The Brights". It is true that very accomplished people in the hard sciences, for example, most Nobel Prize Winners in Physics, Chemistry, Medicine/Physiology, are atheists. I have met very intelligent atheists - but I have also met many atheists who are as intelligent as a pile of rocks. And the hubris of calling yourselves "the brights", with the implicit suggestion that anyone not in line with your world view is NOT bright, is very off-putting.
I work in medicine. I have religious colleagues. They are intelligent - but they were also raised in a culture that so strongly emphasised religiosity, that they cannot help but believe. Belief is not just a matter of raw intelligence - emotional pull, societal and family expectations and, in some cases, law, compel people to believe regardless of their intellectual prowess. And insulting them is not the best way to convince them to change their world view.
The brights counter this by saying that if you are not a "bright" or "Bright" (the capital B being a way to distinguish those who are actively affiliated with their movement as opposed to those who just agree with them - I think the Capital B could signify a less generous term, to be honest), then you are a "Super" - as in someone who believes in the supernatural. But why use "Bright" as a term opposite of "Super"? Wouldn't "Naturalist" be a better term?
I am an atheist and I do not mind telling that to others. But in my dealings with many young atheists, I honestly find myself very depressed. They seem to mostly be in the movement for self-congratulatory celebrations of how they are smarter than those in the opposite camp. Out reach and winning people over is not often the goal. I get that many feel the need to praise each other in a world that is often overtly hostile to them, but it hurts any attempt at reaching out. Atheist movements need to be seen as welcoming to all humans and not as a club for the "Smartest" to mock those who are not.
This is amazingly helpful! Thank you for compiling and publishing this information.
Normally, I appreciate your charts, but this time you missed the mark. Badly.
Atheism is not a culture or a class. It is not a faith, and as such has no denominations. Atheism is a negative, rather than affirmative state, and can only be measured demographically.
One is an atheist because he or she either A) never heard about god/fods thus the person never believed, or, B) they heatd sn argument for a god or gods and rejected it. That's it. End of story.
An atheist need not take any position, have any cosmology, nor feel the need to explain anything. An atheist is simply one eho doesn't believe in god. It's in the word... a-theist.
You can do better than this.
i know your focusing on the US, but still i feel like marxists/socialists should have been mentioned.
Absolutely. I would contend that the largest atheist organization in the world is the Communist Party of China.
Yes, I agree. We should ask for a video on this subject. There are papers on this.
Those are political/economic theories, they don't have anything to do with religion. The USSR and China being mostly atheist has little to do with the actual beliefs of Marxism or Socialism. As an aside myself and many other leftists would argue that neither of those countries were even remotely socialist let alone communists.
@@stevenclark5173 Marx didn’t just write about politics and economics, he dealt with philosophy in many works. I’m also not sure how communist countries actually reflecting marxism is relevant. its undeniable that Marxist philosophies played a major role in history and i think marxist atheism should be considered a “denomination” of atheism.
@@stevenclark5173 yes, Christian religion was very antagonistic to other anti religions, Islam, pagan beliefs in Africa and Americas. As well, the Communism was very antagonistic against other systems of thinking as Capitalism, Social Democracy etc. No tolerance. Communism was the only true and valid system. If you opposed you ended up in prison, gulag or executed.
I love how to support your claims about atheist and secular “denominations” - in particular, the bit about having “creeds” - you had developed a scientific study of your own and collected and analysed relevant data, which is a very secular thing to do despite not being secular yourself.
I also love the choice of angsty red and black for the Satanist sections of the chart, which is actually in line with the main Satanic criticism of religious influence, how imagery and stories can be used to sway entire groups of people despite objective, measurable reality.
My point is, I really enjoy how your atheist videos are all presented in a way that is friendly towards atheist believes, sentiments and processes, despite not identifying as atheist yourself.
Thanks!
In 20:00, you say that New Atheism represented a turn in the sense of a new atheist attack on religion which was uncommon before. While that is true of the groups you cite, there have been many atheist movements and groups more broadly who campaigned strongly against religion from way back, from the Young Hegelians to many Marxist groups, French secularism to an extent, and Mexican revolutionaries. Most groups you cite probably think those campaigns led to more harm than good, and they may well be correct, but I still find that worth noting.
Bear and forbear
Give and forgive
Live and let live
No god or creed required.
Can you do the denominations of the People's Front of Judea (sorry, Judean People's Front) next?
16:55 - how many self-described theists did you survey? Your graphs show atheist and agnostic responses combined, and all they really show is (surprise surprise) the *entirely expected* disagreement between these and churchgoing christians about the foundational beliefs of christianity (that god and souls do or do not exist).
Secularism doesn’t require individuals to be atheists or agnostics. It simply means that public institutions and laws should remain neutral and not impose any specific religious beliefs on citizens. Secular governments protect religious freedom by ensuring citizens are free to practice their faith without interference from the state, and religious institutions operate independently from government control. And that's not the case with some religious countries, like Uganda (Christian country) or the Muslim world. In the Muslim world apostasy is punishable by death.
The problem with calling these denominations is they aren’t mutually exclusive
To be fair, the video does make that point clear.
@@CountScarlioni you forget theists have a habit of taking the headline and running with it, they don't care about the tiny details in-between.
"I am an atheist."
"As soon as the plane starts to fall, you will start to believe."
"It could be, but that's part of the point. 'God' is part of our psychology, another narrative we can turn to in order to deal with uncertainty. Not something out there overseeing the universe."
I'm probably somewhere between agnostic and spiritual (May the Force be with you!), but it will never not be funny to see or hear so many atheists try to explain why their belief systems are special and shouldn't be categorized or organized into groups like every other belief system throughout human history. Good video as always. TY
I feel like not mentioning Marxism in a video on Atheist "denominations" is on the level of leaving the Roman Catholic Church out of a video on Christian denominations. Like, you don't have to support the Soviet Union at all to acknowledge that they're kinda important in the spread of Atheism in Eastern Europe, like, these are the guys who tried to militantly disband the church. Even outside the Soviets, leftism and anti-religion go hand in hand
I’m curious since secular Buddhism wasn’t mentioned in either your Buddhist denominations video or this one where you think it lines up.
Aww i was hoping for a “Witchcraft & Neo-Pagan” religion family tree
That'd be very interesting, but it's also talking about a small community that's very firmly rooted in counter-culture (and over several centuries, at this point!), so it might be difficult to be both informative about the history _and_ fair to the present-day community. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, though.
satanists just seem edgy to be edgy and take on the label other religions gave them.
on the one hand I can respect the bold move, on the other hand aren't you playing into the stereo types your trying to break away from? makes no sense to me.
Wait till you meet one, they smell awful 😂
I have no respect for them
It definitely attracts a certain type of person. Most tend to be edgy and selfish, as expected of autotheism. They can also just be a kind goth but they are not the louder voice.
My understanding is that the reason they call themselves Satanists (besides the obvious shock value to the theocratically minded conservatives) is to show admiration to the literary character in Milton's Paradise Lost. Specifically, that character's refusal to be subjected to divine authoritarianism.
interesting, I used to follow someone who was a satanist, it seems more like a free spirited movement of openness and tolorance for all and individualism.
not exactly harmful to anyone, just a bit edgy to be seen, makes sense considering where and when it started.@@mathewfinch
It's interesting that the "Golden Age of Freethought" coincided with peak interest (in Anglophonic countries) in spiritualism.
that is because people still didn't fully understand the natural world, spiritualism was a "naturalist" way to explain things that were fully believed to be real because a culture centered around religion, like ghosts and afterlife, without assuming the bible (and other religious texts) had the answer. freethinking is just the realization that we shouldn't blindly believe in religious texts, not that we suddenly realized everything we believed to be true for thousands of years, like magic and spirits, were not real.
@@danilooliveira6580 I acknowledge that your response captures some people's approaches to spiritualism at the time, but to reduce all that falls under the umbrella of spiritualism to pseudoscience akin to phrenology and/or phlogiston theory is to miss how spiritualism acted as an add-on to mainstream theistic belief and/or a de facto religion in itself. Spiritualism was/is much closer to Christian Science or Theosophy than to what the "MacLab" (For those who don't know, look up "Project Alpha James Randi" to read about it.) infamously failed to study with the scientific method.
I'm an Atheist and a Freethinker (not affiliated to any organisation), but I feel I would be iffy calling myself a Humanist - most who adopt that name seem to believe in some kind of "natural law" morality that would apply to all humans in all societies and all times. I am more relativistic than that, though I think it is definitely possible to be "good" and also to do wrong/be hypocritical/trample on human rights (which I view as a social contract all modern states and most modern societies at least nominally adhere to) and thus be "evil" in the absence of religion, I don't think such "good" and "evil" are entirely absolute (nor entirely relative!). I am pretty influenced by the existentialist idea that each person must create their own meaning and thus their own "ethics". I am also influenced by Marxism and social contract theory.
I would question the author's questionnaire on this basis - if it asks about my personal beliefs, I probably hold very Humanist ethical beliefs - I would agree with the statements there. But I hold many anti-Humanist metaethical beliefs.
Also worth mentioning, many Satanists are anti-Humanist (for different reasons than I am).
I think there's also the hazard that "humanism" can be manipulated into "human-centrism" where exploitation and ecological destruction is justifiable because it improves the condition of humans or of more humans than it harms. So I hesitate to use "humanism" as well, even though, strictly speaking, I'd probably overwhelmingly agree with most its tenants. There is certain and good faith and bad faith use of that philosophy.
That is a third, and relevant, critique of humanism! I personally think that if we understand the interdependency of species and ecosystems we are a part of can lead to a wiser humanism that can survive that critique. Because ultimately if we equally value other beings and humans, our ethics can be driven into almost suicidal or nihilistic positions on humanity given the harm we have already caused/are capable of causing. But definitely humanism is used as a rhetoric by... capitalism to justify its exploitation of nature.
@@QuesoCookies
@QuesoCookies That actually goes against Humanist ideals. Humanists actually care a lot about the environment.
What about using the word "life stance" instead of religion, if you plan on making a chart including both atheist and theist organizations?
Also, considered mentioning some of the most prominent non-anglophone atheist organizations?
Yay!! Covering us nons. :)
Very happy to see this series concluded!
No credits to Religion For Breakfast for the voice-over?
Using religious terminology to explain the history of Atheism is like putting a square peg in a round hole.
Some really bad takes and comparisons. Would've been better without including your own opinion. At some points even felt like you're trying to have kind of a "gotcha". I'd prefer you stick to explaining things objectively. I'm not following any of these schools or creeds, never read them. Forcefully putting me into a category just to be able to call it a belief, whereas, in my view, beliefs are something which are received by "revelation" by some people and their followers "believe" that that is true. Comparing apples to pears imho.
Seek Christ
He's jewish and his religious beliefs don't change just by making a graph about non-religious groups
Why?
@@alfredojoskowicz1046Jewish people don't really believe in Christ, do they?
bro is the master baiter
19:00 - why include salacious details about O'Hair's life, or that her son became a baptist? How is that even relevant?
Outstanding Presentation! As an atheist, I really enjoyed this.
Loved to see the "don't care" category from your earlier research. I think that's an often overlooked group. I love studying religion but often have to use ridiculous analogies when describing my own "belief system" that honestly could be summed up with "don't care". Is your dissertation publicly available?
20:25 - no, not evangelistic about spreading atheist ideas, but passionate about resisting the unsupported, untestable delusions that were infecting policy making and challenging those that hold such beliefs and would use them as the basis of their decision making in public realms to justify them. They ask two simple questions: what do you believe, and why do you believe it.
simply showing that I might agree with 17 tenets of a creed, doesn't mean I would agree with all of it. or even that I would follow it like a creed.
Whoa! Many of the organizations that you've mentioned as being "atheist" denominations _don't_ take an express position one way or another with respect to organized religions and supernatural beings. Consequently, you should also include organizations such as *AARP, ACLU, Red Cross (IRCRCM), UN,* plus some of the organizations that I myself am a member of: *AAA, ACM, IEEE* etc. The last one, in particular, has the motto _"Advancing Technology for Humanity."_ And has more members than all your other "atheist" organizations put together!
(To be clear, I said AAA, not AA. The latter requires acceptance of a "higher power," and therefore, wouldn't qualify to be listed here.)
On the other hand, you've missed out the most important atheist movement of the late 19th and most of the 20th centuries: *Marxism / Communism.* And let's not forget the much smaller, but fairly popular *Ayn Rand Society.*
I wouldn't regard any of the organizations I recognise from your list as "atheist". People of any or no religion can support them. They aren't religious organizations, but they aren't atheist either. Are sports teams atheist? How about community organizations that support public libraries, museums, etc.? These organizations are secular as opposed to religious. Atheist is the wrong term here.
Also, Marxism and especially communism more broadly are not inherently atheistic. Communism cannot even be considered inherently or implicitly secular.
@@b.a.erlebacher1139 My point exactly! Many of the organizations that Matt mentioned in this video as being atheist denominations are actually secular-they don't take an explicit stand on the existence or otherwise of supernatural beings, and are open to all people irrespective of their religious beliefs. Which is why I supplemented Matt's list with several more secular organizations that are better known and are much larger too. All in good fun, you understand 😜
As for sports teams-well, I don't know of any that are explicitly atheist. But I do know that many of them are religious. Especially those sponsored by religious organizations and those in religious countries. They begin and end their practices with prayer; they pray before matches and during halftime etc. They're required to-not just individually, but as a team activity. Which makes me wonder-what if both teams pray to the same god for victory? On what basis does said god decide which team should win and which team should lose? Sincerity of prayer? Purity of their souls? But I digress.
@@nHans I don't think I read your post carefully enough, and I see your point now. Sorry!
@square3356 Oh, don't apologize. It's all in good fun, I'm sure 👍.
True, the "IST" in "secularist" does have an anti-religion connotation. Whereas "secular"-without the "IST"-is more neutral and less judgmental. The UN is certainly pluralist. But I would also call it "secular" because it calls itself that in many of its own documents and speeches.
In other places, it doesn't use the word "secular" explicitly, but makes its intentions clear nonetheless. For example, its charter says _"... _*_without distinction as to_*_ race, sex, language, or _*_religion_*_ ..."_ four times. (Emphasis mine.)
And Article 18 of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states:
_Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance._
(Presumably, the right to practice _any_ religion includes the right _not_ to practice any religion as well.)
I mean, I get it and charts are fun, that's why we're here. But "Atheism" isn't any kind of doctrine, it just means that you don't believe in any gods. What is the word for people who don't believe in unicorns then? Or ghosts? Or vampires? Or Russell's Teapot? You could go on forever.
Great video, Matt. I downloaded your thesis! Looking forward to reading it (having watch the video series it's based on). ...I was curious how (as some in the comments have pointed out) that you avoided mentioning other sources of organized non- (or anti-) religious thought from other parts of the world, especially several branches of modern philosophy (including several influential figures who inspired organized groups or followings: Socrates, Kant, Marx, Nietzsche, many Consequentialist thinkers like J.S. Mill and Peter Singer). These groups are not "denominations" in the "tongue-in-cheek" sense in which you use the term here, but these "philosophy camps" do provide--for some at least--an ethos for how to live a good life, community, a coherent morality, etc. ...Perhaps some modern forms of Buddhism deserve a nod here too?
I concur by joining atheist, freethinker and humanist in one. I think here in Europe that's the general line of thinking of atheists, the majority of non-religious thought. It's funny for us like in America religious people attack atheists telling them they have no sense of morality, that we are inadequate for distinguishing good from evil. Which is completely absurd.