First Question

[John_Silver]

Before I post I'll quote from my introduction for those who may have missed it:

Shalom everyone.
I am working on a project for my website. Having grown up in church with a pastor for a father, I knew very few non-theists on a personal level as I am sure you can readily imagine. I knew atheists as opponents rather than people. Having spent the last 12 years unlearning and rediscovering my Faith, there are a few walls I would like to break down. That said, back to the matter at hand. The project! As most of you know preeminently, a great deal of Christians understand very little about how atheists are as people. To my chagrin, I count myself among that number. The ultimate aspiration for my visit is to procure input for a series of articles I will be writing in March (upon my return from Israel) which deal specifically with the most personal aspects of Atheism.
I also wanted to iterate that I am not here to debate. We all know the arguments (many of them verbatim). Most debates into which I have ventured begin with one side or the other vying for intellectual supremacy. I will be happy to stand aside and play the part of the village idiot in those instances. You will come to know what I am after once I put forth the questions orbiting feverishly around this small mass of gray matter in my skull.
Well, that's me. I suppose the next step is to put some questions to the board. Pleasure to meet you all.

The first question may or may not dispel a belief in some circles of Christianity which suggests that there are two camps: The Non-Theist and the Atheist. The rationale is that Non-Theists simply "live and let live". They don't believe in any sort of Deity and live peaceful, progressive lives. In the other camp, across the river, live the intellectual-para-military arm of Non-Theism, Atheists. These, as it is understood, study and research for the purpose of debate and debunking religions as a whole but in particular, Christianity (Dawkins, Gould, Newdow, et al).

What do you find in this belief (naive or willfully ignorant as you may see it) that is erroneous to any degree? And do you subscribe in whole or in part to any of these notions?

Thank you all for your consideration.

John

[G-Roll]

Ill take a stab at it…
In my opinion the “intellectual-para-military” atheist isn’t much different than a fundamentalist religious person. Perhaps one could say that feeling the need to spread the word of disbelief isn’t that different than feeling a need to spread the word of belief. That and perhaps the need to feel or prove to themselves, to others, or possibly to the whole world that they are right. However some are people just like to debate. Some like to learn, to study, and then go out and show others what they have learned. And then there are of course a select few who actually want to rid the world of religion.
Now I am no psychologist or scientist but this is my simple take on the question.

For the other part of your question, the debate against Christianity in particular. One would have to figure that is the dominate western religion. So most people where raised Christian and know Christianity better than other religions of the world. They meet more Christians and most often if “engaged” or harassed by a religious person it is more than likely be a Christian.  Also there is more freedom of religion in the west. Where one can be an atheist if one so chooses. As always it is different strokes for different folks, and Im sure if others reply to your post you will have a number of different answers.

I hope this has contributed in some way. I look forward to discussing both views of it more.

[John_Silver]

I hope this has contributed in some way. I look forward to discussing both views of it more.

Brilliantly so. Thanks for that. My observations (which will not go over well with my Christian brethren once the articles hit), are very similar to yours. Robertson, Falwell and Hagee would be the para-military arm of the Christian camp. No question. With regard to Christianity seemingly being singled out in the west, that makes sense. Christians are more ready to hand in the west. I suppose an Atheist in Iran would be taking on a much different type of religious system (though to greater consequence). Well put. Thanks, G-Roll.

John

[G-Roll]

Robertson, Falwell and Hagee

one would have to mention bill o'riely as well. his constant atheist war on christmas non since.  

[John_Silver]

Robertson, Falwell and Hagee

one would have to mention bill o'riely as well. his constant atheist war on christmas non since.  

Ha! Well that's certainly true. Although, I am a Bill-O fan...he does, like most news analysts, get carried away at times. And about Christmas, I have all but made my mind up. It doesn't really belong to Christians in a historical sense. Not in my mind anyway. Yes, I celebrate Yeshua's birth, but I do so around Sukkot (which is most likely when He was born). Christmas as a celebration of much of anything is fast becoming a ruse in my eyes.

[joeactor]

Hi John,

If I may chime in (not an atheist myself), but it sounds like your definition of atheism is actually "Anti-Theism".

Most atheists I've spoken with do not take an active anti-religious stance, but instead react when religious groups or individuals intrude on their lives or freedoms.

In this sense, "Non-Theists" and "Atheists" would be the same thing, with the para-military wing labeled as "Anti-Theists".

Hope I'm not confusing the issue, but it seemed a bit off to me.

For the record, I'm a "Live and Let Live" type...

Cheers,
JoeActor

[AlP]

I'll add a little. Some atheists self-identify primarily as such, while others do not. Ask the rather vague question "what is your world view?" and some atheists will self identify primarily as atheists and others as something else. Ask me and I'll say something along the lines of "some kind of Liberal existentialist". But if you were to specifically ask me if I was an atheist I would have to agree but admit that, while I believe there are most likely no deities (at least as far as any society has yet conceived), I don't claim to know with certainty.

Others might self-identify primarily as "free-thinker", "Buddhist", "humanist" or any number of other designations. I think this difference between theists and atheists might be because, for theists, the religious belief is more important than any other categorization, whereas for the atheist, religion might or might not be the most important aspect of there outlook. They might feel that, for example, ethics, philosophy or politics is more appropriate.

There's also the issue of context. An atheist is probably more likely to self-identify as atheist in the context of an atheist or religious forum than in real life.

Good luck with the project!

[John_Silver]

If I may chime in (not an atheist myself), but it sounds like your definition of atheism is actually "Anti-Theism".

Just to clarify it's not my definition but one of those beliefs held tightly in certain Christian circles. It was, of course, my view prior to rediscovering the beliefs I now hold
But you are quite right! And I can understand a group's natural tendency toward defensiveness when it is attacked. In most Christian sects there exists a great deal of fear of being perceived as intellectually inferior. From Copernicus to Galileo to Scopes â€" brilliant men have been hammering away at religion. My great dread is that fellow Believers are so used to fear (both experiencing it and doling more that enough of it out), they have missed the Message. But that's another story. You'll hear absolutely no defense from me for many Christian evangelicals who put to use scare tactics bolstered only by a gross man-handling of the Scriptures.

Thanks, joeactor!

[pckizer]

In this sense, "Non-Theists" and "Atheists" would be the same thing, with the para-military wing labeled as "Anti-Theists".

And here you touch on one of my strong pet peeves.  Where you label "para-military", I often hear people say "militant" atheists/anti-theists/etc.  At least in my life-time there really haven't been any violent actions taken by atheists, particularly against any form of theists/religious/etc.  On those (extremely) few occasions where some of the (usually younger or more newly converted) atheists have begun to cross the lines with vandalism/graffiti/etc, there's usually a very rapid denunciation of them by the various non-religious communities.

As such, calling them militant is a pretty severe misnomer and appears to be trying to link or associate actions inappropriately.  I could see calling the more vocal and out-spoken atheists and anti-theists as "strident", "activist" or some such, but to the use of the term "militant" I must strongly object.

[John_Silver]

As such, calling them militant is a pretty severe misnomer and appears to be trying to link or associate actions inappropriately.  I could see calling the more vocal and out-spoken atheists and anti-theists as "strident", "activist" or some such, but to the use of the term "militant" I must strongly object.

In my original post, I was restating what certain Evangelical circles believe. And I believe I used the words Intellectual-para-military. But these are the words they use. It stokes the fire. However, for my purposes, the ire wrapped within your objection does answer some questions about this belief among Christians and the atheist reaction to it. Fair enough.

John

[John_Silver]

Others might self-identify primarily as "free-thinker", "Buddhist", "humanist" or any number of other designations. I think this difference between theists and atheists might be because, for theists, the religious belief is more important than any other categorization, whereas for the atheist, religion might or might not be the most important aspect of there outlook. They might feel that, for example, ethics, philosophy or politics is more appropriate.

There's also the issue of context. An atheist is probably more likely to self-identify as atheist in the context of an atheist or religious forum than in real life.

Good luck with the project!

So, within those self-identifications, are there really that many variables? For instance, there are wide chasms between what a Catholic believes about core doctrine and what a Charismatic does. I understand there exists no real doctrine within Atheism. But are all core beliefs about the world (both humanity and nature) relatively similar? Is there any division within Atheism (say with regard to science or philosophy) as there is within Christianity as a whole?

[AlP]

So, within those self-identifications, are there really that many variables? For instance, there are wide chasms between what a Catholic believes about core doctrine and what a Charismatic does.

I would say there are as many variables as there are ideas and the number of ideas has been vast and growing in Western civilization since the transition from feudal times into the industrial revolution and prior to that in the ancient world.

I understand there exists no real doctrine within Atheism. But are all core beliefs about the world (both humanity and nature) relatively similar?

They are similar in the sense that they are all ideas. There are also some common themes, such as ethics, ontology and epistemology.

Is there any division within Atheism (say with regard to science or philosophy) as there is within Christianity as a whole?

I would invert that question. Is there any consistency within atheism? Atheism to some people is simply the absence of a certain kind of belief while to others it is a positive belief about the number of deities that exist and within the latter category there are degrees of certainty: for example gnostic (strong) versus agnostic (weak) atheism.

I don't think there are really divisions. That would imply some kind of barrier. A barrier, I think, would require some kind of doctrine. Some atheists do subscribe to beliefs that could be considered dogmatic, such as rationalism. But that doesn't really have anything to do with their atheism.

[John_Silver]

I don't think there are really divisions. That would imply some kind of barrier. A barrier, I think, would require some kind of doctrine. Some atheists do subscribe to beliefs that could be considered dogmatic, such as rationalism. But that doesn't really have anything to do with their atheism.

Great points, all of them. So the lack of a core doctrine (over which two might squabble for centuries, as is the case with Christianity) removes a barrier to similar worldviews? For instance, one Atheist might believe that an ape who saves a child who has fallen into her den at a zoo (as happened a number of years ago) and cradles it and protects it until help arrives is instinctual and another might believe that it demonstrates "mother-love" and therefore holds that animals do in fact have souls? (I heard the latter from an Atheist friend; now whether or not she can be considered an Atheist based upon that premise I leave to you). But this does not, in effect, cause division within the worldview itself?

Thanks again for you well-reasoned replies AIP.

John

[AlP]

Great points, all of them. So the lack of a core doctrine (over which two might squabble for centuries, as is the case with Christianity) removes a barrier to similar worldviews?

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.

For instance, one Atheist might believe that an ape who saves a child who has fallen into her den at a zoo (as happened a number of years ago) and cradles it and protects it until help arrives is instinctual and another might believe that it demonstrates "mother-love" and therefore holds that animals do in fact have souls? (I heard the latter from an Atheist friend; now whether or not she can be considered an Atheist based upon that premise I leave to you). But this does not, in effect, cause division within the worldview itself?

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

[Whitney]

As others have pointed out....

Atheists are non-theists.  Those who speak out against religion are simply anti-religion atheists (or might be anti-religion theists in some cases as there are theists who dislike religion just as much as some atheists).

I personally think it is possible to voice personal distaste for religious views yet still maintain a live and let live attitude.  There are tons of things I think are horribly wrong with religion but as long as religious people don't try to force their views on others (via politics, school, government, etc) then I frankly don't care what whooey they believe.  Unfortunately (or fortunately since it makes them look bad to all reasonable people), it is the religious people with the craziest views who tend to practice a my way or the highway approach.