First Question

[John_Silver]

I would say there is no barrier to be removed in the first place. Without doctrine, where would the barrier come from? If you could please explain what you mean by barrier, I can perhaps provide a better answer.

Well the barrier would be put into play once a person holding a particular view and who associates with those of similar mind discovers that another individual claiming to hold the same view contradicts the worldview held by all parties involved and begins to share these views on a large scale with others. It happens in churches all over the world. I am just wondering if it ever happens in Atheism. Take the example I gave (even though you aren't familiar with the details). Would an atheist look at another atheist (or one who claims to be) who believes animals and humans have souls and say "that's not an atheist". So I suppose a better word for barrier would be a "bone of contention". Please forgive my lack of understanding of your worldview it is for this reason I am asking these questions.  

No division. Though personally, although I don't have the full details of the scenario you describe, I am initially skeptical of both conclusions.

Fair enough.

[AlP]

Well the barrier would be put into play once a person holding a particular view and who associates with those of similar mind discovers that another individual claiming to hold the same view contradicts the worldview held by all parties involved and begins to share these views on a large scale with others. It happens in churches all over the world. I am just wondering if it ever happens in Atheism. Take the example I gave (even though you aren't familiar with the details). Would an atheist look at another atheist (or one who claims to be) who believes animals and humans have souls and say "that's not an atheist". So I suppose a better word for barrier would be a "bone of contention". Please forgive my lack of understanding of your worldview it is for this reason I am asking these questions.

Got it. I think there can be no barriers within atheism if you take atheism to mean simply not believing in deities. There really isn't anything to debate unless you claim there are deities, at which point your position ceases to be atheist. I think the difference might be that a theist must defend something, some specific idea about their religion, whereas the atheist is essentially defending nothing. It's hard to disagree over what nothing means.

That doesn't mean we don't argue of course. Look at all these posts!

[John_Silver]

I think the difference might be that a theist must defend something, some specific idea about their religion, whereas the atheist is essentially defending nothing. It's hard to disagree over what nothing means.

Fair. That makes sense. So, in essence, an Atheist believes in nothing as "nothing" relates to deities. But believes in something as it relates to morality and common human decency, an ideal which no sane person would assault in the first place. But what you do in fact defend against is this notion that Atheists are without morals or that they simply high-jack the morals of other beliefs systems. Is that a fair assessment?  

That doesn't mean we don't argue of course. Look at all these posts!

Yeah...I think that's a people thing.

[Ultima22689]

I think the difference might be that a theist must defend something, some specific idea about their religion, whereas the atheist is essentially defending nothing. It's hard to disagree over what nothing means.

Fair. That makes sense. So, in essence, an Atheist believes in nothing as "nothing" relates to deities. But believes in something as it relates to morality and common human decency, an ideal which no sane person would assault in the first place. But what you do in fact defend against is this notion that Atheists are without morals or that they simply high-jack the morals of other beliefs systems. Is that a fair assessment?  

That doesn't mean we don't argue of course. Look at all these posts!

Yeah...I think that's a people thing.

Welcome to the forum bud and i'm glad you're here. It's rare these days to enjoy a conversation with a theist  such as yourself.

Atheist do indeed oppose the idea or stereotype that we hijacked some other belief system or religion's morals or that we live without morals. Anyone correct me if i'm wrong but the general consensus among atheist is that morals are a result of social evolution and just as logic dictates that if you jump off a building you will die common sense or human nature rather compels you to help your fellow man. I'm an atheist and have been since I was six. I like to think I have a decent sense of morals and I would never harm a person in offense, I always try to help those when I have the power to do so. I tend to be generous with currency  and I always try to offer kind words when deemed fit to do so. Now that doesn't mean i'm without faults, I've done bad things in life but not because I never accepted religion and anything i've done was a result of neglecting logic as a youth.

[AlP]

So, in essence, an Atheist believes in nothing as "nothing" relates to deities. But believes in something as it relates to morality and common human decency, an ideal which no sane person would assault in the first place.

That idea can, should and has been assaulted. See John Stuart Mills or Friedrich Nietzsche for example. Note that I used the word "should" in the first sentence. I agonize over how to justify that "should". That's where I am with ethics. Ethics is hard and I'm glad that it's hard.

But what you do in fact defend against is this notion that Atheists are without morals or that they simply high-jack the morals of other beliefs systems. Is that a fair assessment?

Others might well disagree with me. I think atheism itself isn't really about ethics. It is simply a disbelief in deities. However, some atheists argue that they behave ethically or altruistically for evolved physiological or psychological reasons. If that's true, which I think it is, it's not because they are atheists, it's because they are human animals. I agree with this idea but I also think that ethical ideas are something that must be actively pursued by the individual.

I honestly believe that ethics is the pursuit of an answer one can never obtain. This seems consistent with reality. Nobody in the history of mankind has found the "right" ethics. Ethics is the pursuit. That's not an atheist idea though; it's an existentialist idea.

[John_Silver]

Others might well disagree with me. I think atheism itself isn't really about ethics. It is simply a disbelief in deities. However, some atheists argue that they behave ethically or altruistically for evolved physiological or psychological reasons. If that's true, which I think it is, it's not because they are atheists, it's because they are human animals. I agree with this idea but I also think that ethical ideas are something that must be actively pursued by the individual

I had to laugh at the Nietzsche reference. Particularly when I had said no sane person would assault it. Kidding! I am currently reading The Birth of Tragedy. But it makes me want to jump out a window in some parts it's so depressing. I can only read his work in small doses.

But, back to earth, what I wanted you to clarify is the statement "It is simply a disbelief in deities". If that is true, my question then becomes; why all the forums, and organizations and books and "Churches of Atheism" (tongue-in-cheek as they may be)? Doesn't that relegate Atheism to more of a Lion's Club of sorts if it is indeed simply a lack of belief in deities? Surely you discuss things of importance which leads me to believe that there are some pretty strongly held beliefs in something. I think it is that something that I am trying to get at. And again, it is to shed light on a great deal of ignorance "back home" and, admittedly, in my own mind.

I honestly believe that ethics is the pursuit of an answer one can never obtain. This seems consistent with reality. Nobody in the history of mankind has found the "right" ethics. Ethics is the pursuit. That's not an atheist idea though; it's an existentialist idea.

Well said. Thanks!

John

[templeboy]

Atheist is a very vague word...it is a broad definition that can apply to people with a wide range of worldviews. I am an atheist, but to say that is sort of like my christian friends identifying their religion as "theist." Labels like "secular humanist," "freethinker," "rationalist" convey a lot more information about ones worldview.

why all the forums, and organizations and books and "Churches of Atheism" (tongue-in-cheek as they may be)? Doesn't that relegate Atheism to more of a Lion's Club of sorts if it is indeed simply a lack of belief in deities?

Because we achieve more together than apart. There is nothing more to it than that really...the "opposition," so to speak, are heavily organised and influential, and in most countries more numerous than us, we would simply get run over if we did not band together.

[John_Silver]

Welcome to the forum bud and i'm glad you're here. It's rare these days to enjoy a conversation with a theist  such as yourself.

Thank you, Ultima! I know, and it's unfortunate. But we are out there...those of us who believe in a god (or Yeshua, specifically in my case) yet still see how He spoke and interacted and in fact spent a great deal of time with unbelievers. To what end? Who knows. We aren't always told. And I think that's important. Conversion isn't the end all of a Believers existence despite what some would have you believe. In fact, I am beginning to question whether or not it is a Believer's responsibility at all! I mean, we don't get extra credit. And if I don't get extra credit, I don't write the essay.

John

[John_Silver]

Atheist is a very vague word...it is a broad definition that can apply to people with a wide range of worldviews. I am an atheist, but to say that is sort of like my christian friends identifying their religion as "theist." Labels like "secular humanist," "freethinker," "rationalist" convey a lot more information about ones worldview.

In truth, I wasn't aware of the labels. That helps immensely.

Because we achieve more together than apart. There is nothing more to it than that really...the "opposition," so to speak, are heavily organised and influential, and in most countries more numerous than us, we would simply get run over if we did not band together.

Ok, I can certainly understand that. I may be reading more into it than I should (I tend to over-analyze as a rule) but what would you lose by getting "run over"? For instance, a Christian fears that Atheists would "run them over" if any law that smacks of Godlessness were to be implemented (hence the maniacal attacks on Michael Newdow). But Atheists don't really believe in anything they couldn't let go of at the drop of a hat. I mean, there really appears to be nothing to lose either way for an Atheist. He isn't bothering anyone so why should he be bothered to band together as a matter of tactical survival? Or is it simply that Christians have infiltrated law-making bodies and tend to err on the side of religion when passing bills? A major annoyance with which I can identify (don't get me started on that). But even then, if you simply don't believe in a deity, does it really affect you that much?

Again I am trying to get at the dynamics of this notion of banding together. And, for the record, I do not in any way shape or form believe that Christians should be meddling in matters of State. There is simply no Scriptural precedent for such a ridiculous notion.    

John

[AlP]

I had to laugh at the Nietzsche reference. Particularly when I had said no sane person would assault it. Kidding! I am currently reading The Birth of Tragedy. But it makes me want to jump out a window in some parts it's so depressing. I can only read his work in small doses.

Admitted. Nietzsche's work is somewhat like the Bible. It has to be interpreted. I find much of it beautiful and some of it makes me want to jump out of the nearest window.

Please read the last chapter of Albert Camus' "The Myth of Sisyphus". I still cannot read it without crying (in a good way). Camus is my favorite existentialist writer. I would love to know your thoughts. It's really short.

But, back to earth, what I wanted you to clarify is the statement "It is simply a disbelief in deities". If that is true, my question then becomes; why all the forums, and organizations and books and "Churches of Atheism" (tongue-in-cheek as they may be)? Doesn't that relegate Atheism to more of a Lion's Club of sorts if it is indeed simply a lack of belief in deities? Surely you discuss things of importance which leads me to believe that there are some pretty strongly held beliefs in something. I think it is that something that I am trying to get at. And again, it is to shed light on a great deal of ignorance "back home" and, admittedly, in my own mind.

You're right, my statement was vague. I will only speak for my own part. I am interested in philosophy. Religion will obviously influence a person's philosophy. I like to take that bias out of the picture. That was my original reason for joining this forum many months ago; I wanted to discuss philosophical ideas with people that have no religious bias. Or I suppose from another perspective one might view this as wanting to discuss philosophy with people having my own religious bias. Anyway, now these people are my friends and that is the primary reason why I now frequent these parts.

I think that's a good answer. Atheists have a common interest (or disinterest if you like) and they make friends with each other and then you find such things as atheist forums.

There is also a political aspect. Certain religious groups are infringing on the liberties of other (not just atheist) groups. I hope you are not surprised that people with a similar point of view will tend to form alliances in such times.

[Whitney]

One reason to get together is that humans simply tend to enjoy the company of like minded people.  Not to mention that many people do run into issues with work and family simply due to their lack of belief so groups can also provide emotional support when dealing with those problems.

[John_Silver]

Please read the last chapter of Albert Camus' "The Myth of Sisyphus". I still cannot read it without crying (in a good way). Camus is my favorite existentialist writer. I would love to know your thoughts. It's really short.

I will read it this evening. Thanks!

I think that's a good answer. Atheists have a common interest (or disinterest if you like) and they make friends with each other and then you find such things as atheist forums.

There is also a political aspect. Certain religious groups are infringing on the liberties of other (not just atheist) groups. I hope you are not surprised that people with a similar point of view will tend to form alliances in such times.

Not surprised at all. I just wanted to hear it from someone else. It is funny. In my circles, the concern is obviously reversed. Maybe a discussion down the road of the implications of lawmaking as it relates to different groups (be it religious, non-religious, minority or other groups) is warranted. Thanks for your input, Alp. I shall return tomorrow.

John

[John_Silver]

One reason to get together is that humans simply tend to enjoy the company of like minded people.  Not to mention that many people do run into issues with work and family simply due to their lack of belief so groups can also provide emotional support when dealing with those problems.

Well I can understand that. I may have been thinking of the more outspoken groups. Lumping them altogether wasn't my intention. Duly noted.

John

[AlP]

I think that's a good answer. Atheists have a common interest (or disinterest if you like) and they make friends with each other and then you find such things as atheist forums.

There is also a political aspect. Certain religious groups are infringing on the liberties of other (not just atheist) groups. I hope you are not surprised that people with a similar point of view will tend to form alliances in such times.

Not surprised at all. I just wanted to hear it from someone else. It is funny. In my circles, the concern is obviously reversed. Maybe a discussion down the road of the implications of lawmaking as it relates to different groups (be it religious, non-religious, minority or other groups) is warranted. Thanks for your input, Alp. I shall return tomorrow.

John

I was thinking about this some more last night. Another idea...

In countries where religion is popular, such as the US, people tend to identify strongly with their religious group. I can anecdotally contrast that with the experience of living in a country where religion is not as popular. I'm British but I now live in the US. In Britain, I was not a member of any atheist group. The fact that I was an atheist was something that I was aware of, but day-to-day it didn't really register much. If someone did happen to quiz me on my religious beliefs I would self-identify as "not-religious" rather than "atheist". I didn't consider atheism to be an especially important part of my social identity. At that time you could accurately have described me as "apatheist". On the other hand, when I moved to the US, atheism became a much more important part of my social identity. I think it relates to in-group /out-group. An American is very likely to identify in-group as their own religion or denomination. So it comes down to this. Am I an atheist or an outcast?

[TheJackel]

I find this article a bit perplexing.. it seems that you are trying to quantify any given belief system into some sort of stereotype... It's almost not a matter of beliefs vs beliefs here... In many cases it's a matter of sound logical notions of existence  vs illogical notions of existence... Religions, beliefs, or whatever other intangible, or unprovable ideological constructs are merely philosophical points of view that they claim to be absolute facts... I don't think atheist have a problem with any given philosophy or religious ideology.. The problem comes in when such ideologies are thrust into legislation, forcing those who don't agree with said religious construct into being obedient to the ideology..  Most powerful religions have Theocritus agenda's... Atheist do not attempt to legislate atheism... However, we can be very vocal on our points of view.. Most atheist I know believe that logic and reason lead you to a more rational state of mind... To accept what is without trying to literally impose it on others... That is the sole purpose of freedom of religious belief...

Now I don't speak for others here.. But my personal view is that Existence can not be created.. Logically that is impossible.. It would require the need to believe that reverse creationism is possible... Existence simply exists because non-existence can not literally be a person, place, or thing of existence... A god can not create that which he himself must have in order to be in existence.. And that is the container to his own existence and mind.. Thus, by logical deduction, or by example of "infinite regress", a God can not be the answer to existence no matter how supernatural anyone thinks it would be... All minds must have separate containers within a larger container to be free agents.. All containers can not be created by any one mind.. It doesn't take much to debunk the notion of a magical being... The only thing that remains is what ideological morality are you trying to enforce through the use of religion... We all know that religion is not required to have a belief in any given deity's existence... I could logically state that a 5 dimensional being can manipulate our lower 4 dimensions.. It would be no different than me drawing on a peace of paper to create a 2 dimensional drawing... However, no being would be capable of creating existence or actually be capable of being a literal God.. It would only be manipulative creationism.. This is where preexisting tools and substances are required.. But I can not possible claim a 5 dimensional being even exists or had any real manipulative power over our own dimensional planes of existence... I couldn't even tell you if such a being is mortal or immortal...

There comes a point to where if you are speaking out of honesty or speaking in dishonesty... I find those who think they know a GOD exists, or what it's supposed will is, are speaking from a very dishonest point of view... Passing things off they can not verify as facts... This is what breeds irrationality, extremism, and even terrorism... 300 years of burning ought to be example enough of how far such cults will go in order to enforce their ideology on other people...

Also, atheist don't reside in groups.. At least as far as I can tell... There is no Church of atheism or some symbol to be worshiped.. Atheism is more of a philosophy based on logic and reason... It's based on the notion of seeking truth without assumptions.. We question everything... Religion on the other hand is 100 percent assumption and blind faith... It requires blind obedience without self criticism or scrutiny... Most religions use common mechanics found in the process of brainwashing to engineer devotion... If you have ever read a book on the mechanics of brainwashing, you would literally see right through any given religious ideology.. The play on salvation, love, and fear is pretty obvious once you start to do some critical analysis of any given religion... Atheism does non of these things... Atheism simply tries to logically establish what is more likely closer to the truth..