Which type of Political Atheism is most influential in human society currently?

[CristW]

This is a misconception. "Natural Law" was a term invented by religious constitutionalists and possibly deists: John Locke and others. They attempted to connect religious laws(verdicts and dictates) to their social conditions. 'Rights' are not from "Natural Law", it derives from human beings themselves without a creator. We just have to rewrite it as ... "rights derive from nature without a creator".

In reality (with new data and scientific facts) we could actually say that "constitutionalism" is an utilitarian invention.

Hi I voted Constitutionalist, because I found out the hard way
this trumps anything else that is then protected underneath it.

Without due process, equal protections of CREEDS (which I am pushing to recognize political beliefs equally as religious beliefs),
and free speech/press/right to petition, how can you even DEFEND your beliefs whatever they are?

Whenever humans run into political or religious (or personal) conflict,
we revert back to natural laws of trying to redress and resolve grievances
to DEFEND our interests, beliefs and consent in the matter affecting us.

So that is defended and exercising principles of Constitutionalism based on natural laws.

All the other beliefs or subgroups you mentioned are defended equally under Constitutionalism.

My Christian friends worry that I put these principles even above some of the Bible
that requires believes to accept Govt as God given -- well that doesn't mean you don't petition the heck out of it.

the govt IS the people
like the church IS the people.

so it is up to us to petition EACH OTHER to redress grievances.
So we all need Constitutional principles of due process and protections to secure that ability to resolve conflicts
and establish agreements, laws and contract by consent of the governed.

The Christian spirit of Restorative Justice is needed to enforce Constitutional laws inclusively and consistently.
but not necessarily the Bible which isn't the authority for everyone.

but everyone I know reverts to natural laws and 'due process' when they run into conflicts
and have to defend their interests and input in a decision affecting them.

So to me that is more universal to defend, and all other versions or beliefs are equally protected thereunder.

I took a vow to uphold the First Amendment to the Constitution and all religions protected thereunder
which is actually the Fourteenth. And only recently did I learn why that is the default law that everyone relies on
in one form or another.

Muslims call it natural laws from God that even Mohammad taught, but that is not respected equally
through that source. I believe the Constitution CAN become a central source if everyone unites
under it and considers local political beliefs and parties to be denominations protected thereunder.
We can do more to help protect these minority beliefs, similar to states, by uniting under one law of the land.
And then let the separate parties or groups have sovereignty under that, similar to states rights.

so I believe that approach is more universal as an umbrella that can respect all other beliefs equally,
even if they clash with each other, and can provide the tools and backbone necessary for each group to become self-governing.

---

Well, I have not voted yet. I see that militant atheism is winning so far. Yes, I am aware that some of the options may be subsets of the other options.

I was thinking of secular humanism also but I was thinking of atheists by themselves. Secular humanists could be agnostics and others including atheists. Secular humanists means that you would still accept some form of religion existing in society: Free Exercise clause as an example but also protecting the Establishment clause.

Therefore as an Atheists then you would be a Civil Religious Atheist (secular humanist). It derives from the idea of "Civil Religion" which emphasize on the national symbols to keep society cohesive and secular.

Nevertheless, an atheist constitutionalist is utilitarian holding on to "conservative" social values derived from religious dictates (almost a chemical process separating the two elements from the single compound - Values / Religion). It may be a form of conservative utilitarianism.

The liberal form of the previous would be Liberal Progressive Atheism - liberal utilitarianism. Using the above hypothetical chemical example. Liberal Progressive Atheism would disregard the connection and simply say that human values always existed (without god or a religion) and these human values are bound to change over time.

Militant Atheism comes in some forms but its violent form is revolutionary marxism and communism. The non-violent form is anti-theist (intellectual atheists debating against the religious apologists as an example). Within this set there are differences. For example, you could be an anti-theist but a capitalist and accept the current state structure.

Marxism or communism champions the establishment of the state to create a new culture and social structure without religious notions. It uses the state, as a tool, to remove the "vestiges" of religion from society. With this occurring, it means that the state would direct all human activities and uphold pure atheism (not secularism).

Political Nihilism is similar to communism. However, its goals also calls for the removal of the state and it will NOT utilize the state entity for the creation of a new society. It is violent and atheistic, some anarchists may associate with this label.