I think I get why the rebranding occurs. Atheism gets part of its validity from the fact that it is new and doesn't adhere to old traditions so rebranding can be viewed as "better."
Religious truths seem to base part of their truth on the age of the texts they derive their truth from so therefore many of the new sects claim older knowledge. More traditional is often viewed as "better."
Neither has anything to do with rational argumentation. I am simply speaking about rhetoric that people use to nudge listeners or readers towards their particular viewpoint. I think it is crazy to see atheism as anything more than a lack of belief in god/gods but their might be some value in rebranding to appeal to a larger demographic. Like maybe fat free atheism, atheism lite, or even atheism EXTREME! It certainly seems to jazz some people's shorts to call themselves "militant atheist" "strong atheist" "agnostic atheist."
Rhizo
Religious truths seem to base part of their truth on the age of the texts they derive their truth from so therefore many of the new sects claim older knowledge. More traditional is often viewed as "better."
Neither has anything to do with rational argumentation. I am simply speaking about rhetoric that people use to nudge listeners or readers towards their particular viewpoint. I think it is crazy to see atheism as anything more than a lack of belief in god/gods but their might be some value in rebranding to appeal to a larger demographic. Like maybe fat free atheism, atheism lite, or even atheism EXTREME! It certainly seems to jazz some people's shorts to call themselves "militant atheist" "strong atheist" "agnostic atheist."
Rhizo
