I'm non-religious, but do believe in religious like practices, and that the routines and insight from them can be good for many people. Required? No. Helpful? Yes. I don't believe in a deity or afterlife, but I am a Zen Buddhist and believe in the teachings and practices. This confuses many people, both because they are ignorant as to what a Zen Buddhist is/does, and they don't understand why I can also consider myself atheist at the same time, as apparently everyone thinks Buddha was a god or some kind of deity that gets prayed to. There is no inherent function of atheism. It's lack of a belief in a God. That's it. By it's very nature it doesn't have a function. Does the fact that I'm not on astronaut have a function? Does that fact that I don't believe in dragons serve a function? No. There is no function of atheism, it's just a lack of something. But you mention humanism in your post, which is good. I think the problem with many atheists is they take pride in being against something and not believing in a God, when by itself, that means absolutely nothing. All it does is put many of them against religion and that's just kind of silly and childish. Bill Clinton has a quote that I use a lot where he said "Instead of being against something, be FOR something". It's relevant in situations like this. To most atheists I say "Great, you're against religion and don't believe in it, but what DO you believe in, what are you FOR?" Many don't understand or don't have an answer. For me that answer is Buddhism and outer space. For you it's humanism. For some it's pantheism. There are all kinds of beliefs and teachings that can be followed that have nothing to do with belief in a deity, that can still provide many benefits to your life, and help you keep focused on the important things. And I urge people, even atheists, to find "something to be for", even if it's just science or the stars, as that's where we really came from. So, although I am technically an atheist, I hate labeling myself an atheist because it seems so pointless. Might as well label myself an 'asaurus' because I'm not a lizard, it's just as meaningful as calling myself an atheist. Why people focus so much on something they aren't I've never understood.After all, isn’t the function of atheism to clear the room for better conversations?
The bottom line is that the word 'atheist' has a lot of baggage (deserved or not), and people tend to pigeonhole you if you say that's what you are. That's why I prefer to say "I'm not superstitious" in such situations. Less baggage, and it's almost as good at getting a rise out of people ;-)
There are many that really seem to enjoy being atheist for the sole reason of pissing off religious people. Like I'm talking about the /r/atheism type people, the "Facebook Warriors" who feel the need to "educate" everyone with facts/logic whenever someone dare thanks God on their own Facebook page or something equally trivial. And then I think everyone else who is just simply and atheist but doesn't care to really talk to people about it ends up grimmacing everytime people from the militant camp open their mouths.
Interesting parallels here (I think) between atheism and homosexuality, re: "militant".
I don't know if I agree. I mean, atheism's function seems clear to me - to organize and marginalize traditional religions. You can't compare that to not being an astronaut or not believing in dragons. If everyone in the world believed deeply in dragons without evidence... then not believing in dragons would all of a sudden have an important function.By it's very nature it doesn't have a function. Does the fact that I'm not on astronaut have a function? Does that fact that I don't believe in dragons serve a function? No.
Sure I could, if I spent all my time talking about how stupid astronauts and dragons are, and found others like me to talk about how much better we are for not being astronauts or not believing in dragons. Again, don't get me wrong, people HAVE found a function to atheism, which is to belong to a group and counter culture to religion. But I said it has no "inherent" function, which it doesn't. Exactly, we would have created that function. Inherently it does not have one.You can't compare that to not being an astronaut or not believing in dragons.
If everyone in the world believed deeply in dragons without evidence... then not believing in dragons would all of a sudden have an important function.
Alright, I think this become pointless nit picking because we essentially agree.
We do, I just think my post wasn't very clear.
A good point. Atheism by definition means not having a theology. I don't consider myself an atheist, mostly because many people associate it with a type of certainty about the question of the nature of our universe, and often objectivism, which in my opinion puts too much weight on the strength of human perception. Typically I describe myself as non-religious. Like atheism, it is defined as a negative, but I have found that religious people tend to be accepting of that answer. I was raised Catholic, but I don't practice, obviously. Recently my cousin told me that Catholics can baptize others in situations where a priest isn't available. We were standing by Lake Superior, and I told her that she could baptize our 17 mo daughter right there. She did. My other cousin who was there couldn't understand why I would do that since I am not religious. Honestly, I have come to care less about contradictions of that nature.
I started doing this recently, mostly because that is all that really matters to me. If someone believes in some form of deism or something like that, I don't really care. We don't need to discuss it. We can discuss something more important. It is really only difficult to have meaningful intellectual discussions with religious fundamentalists because their entire world is clouded by the God meme. I always knew you were a Pagan devil. Ya, I know what you mean. This is the stance held by most Jews I think. Their culture is still largely religious in nature, so it is important to the social group and the family unit. But this can be easily reconciled by embracing and enjoying the cultural aspects, without taking the scripture literally.I describe myself as non-religious
I was raised Catholic, but I don't practice, obviously.
We were standing by Lake Superior, and I told her that she could baptize our 17 mo daughter right there. She did. My other cousin who was there couldn't understand why I would do that since I am not religious. Honestly, I have come to care less about contradictions of that nature.
I too, was raised Catholic and I also don't practice. For me, Catholicism is more of a cultural element than one of belief. I think that people are sometimes poorer for not having any sort of religious element in their lives, because belief systems have shaped secular cultures so deeply, especially in terms of thought and art. I don't get fundamentalism on either side of the issue. If there is a god or whatever, I doubt it would care how many Hail Maries people say. If there isn't a god, then big whoop. Going out of your way to make people feel bad for their beliefs is shitty and small.
I would hope that no matter what we believe, we could at least agree on this!If there is a god or whatever, I doubt it would care how many Hail Maries people say. If there isn't a god, then big whoop. Going out of your way to make people feel bad for their beliefs is shitty and small.
Would you go far as saying that we can "blur" those lines :)
By his Holiness, Bazooka Joe, I should hope so! By the way, after watching that video (more times than I want to admit) I have learned that the brunette model's name is Emily Ratajkowski and that she has taken her clothes off for photographs on many occasions. I think I have most of them now. A much more pleasant way to spend my time than filling out job applications to be sure, but, y'know. :)
Definitely healthier to think about what we have - humanity - than what we do not. The prefix "a" in atheism means "without."I also feel as though humanism is a positive descriptor; as opposed to a “negative” one. If I think of myself as a humanist, I am constantly reminded of what I believe in and why I try so hard to make something of myself. If I think of myself as an atheist, I am constantly reminding myself that I think traditional religious belief is silly. I’d rather just not think about it in those terms. I’d rather be free to spend more time thinking about religion as an evolutionary and cultural phenomenon.
First and foremost, we need to focus on improving the health, wealth, and opportunity for all members of our species. Secondly, we need to focus on designing a more efficient and sustainable global civilization. And if we are all in some small way working towards these goals, than we are all putting humans first.
This paragraph gave me a pause. Being a humanist is obviously speciesist and as a being conscious of consciousness, that's ok, but it seems necessary to mention other species somewhere in that paragraph. The word "civilization" is also a human-focussed word. Perhaps I would add there something like this: "Secondly, we need to focus on designing a more efficient and sustainable global civilization in which other species are recognized as part of the whole, valued, and respected." -- I'm not sure of the wording... but?? anybody?
Of course I agree with this and definitely include this in part of the goal to create a better civilization for all sentient beings. As you know I hope that through technology we can end animal suffering, and especially the atrocities that occur in factory farms. Thanks for your perspective lil. I suppose I didn't include that statement because I wanted to offer a different perspective to anyone who is non-religious but struggles to find some type of spirituality or meaning, so my focus was on our species.Secondly, we need to focus on designing a more efficient and sustainable global civilization in which other species are recognized as part of the whole, valued, and respected.
Nice perspective! I, too, have been bothered that any time I bring up that I am atheist it often leads to confrontation that I don't want and yet feel obliged to engage in. I do feel wonder and awe and deeply spiritual feelings, that I know are deeply rooted in my psyche and are part of being human... a phenomenum that on one hand I know can be explained through biology and evolution, but on the other hand I enjoy this feeling of connectedness to the universe. I don't want to give up either perspective and don't think I have to. Humanism may be a good answer, a good category to classify myself as. Thanks Cadell!
It's true. To combat this the New Atheist movement came up with the term "Bright", but it hasn't caught on. I feel as though Bright is a nice term but could be seen as extremely condescending. I think the term humanism works so well because it is such a positive descriptor AND you can represent core values that all humans should respect and strive for. If someone is actively against the health, wealth, and well-being of all humans... than I really wouldn't want to be associating with them anyway!any time I bring up that I am atheist it often leads to confrontation that I don't want and yet feel obliged to engage in.
I really like this post! I've often struggled with friends and acquaintances who pick fights about the nature of my non-religious belief for the reason you mentioned. They associate it with a certainty about the nature of being and the universe that I never pretended to have. It's always been difficult in the moment to articulate what you articulate here about prioritizing the needs of humanity, and thinking in more positive terms and negative terms.
If anything this post offers a way for people to be spiritual without clinging to the archaic dogmatism of institutional religions. Hardly an echo chamber of irreligious supremacism.
Also, if your version of Hubski is an echo chamber for anything, then shame on you for following users and tags that make it such. I feel like there is more than enough control over what makes your feed to prevent this. You can literally ignore the tag #atheism and problem solved. Also, I agree with your assessment of your piece.
Classic. Religious people can't deal with any type of criticism. I wonder why?
Here we go. An Internet conversation about religion goes meta and the adhomenems present themselves. The first stone cast is by...? I also enjoyed the immediate assumption that because I dislike anti-theism that must make me religious. In one comment you have demonstrated that you aren't an atheist; you are an anti-theist. You just can't help yourself when it looks like religion can be taken down a peg.
The point of the article was that I don't define my self by what I don't believe in. So I am as much an anti-theist as I am an anti anything else that I think is untrue. I'm perfectly allowed to have that opinion. That doesn't make Hubski or the discussion generated by this post an echo chamber of irreligious supremacism. This entire discussion thread openly discusses spirituality and how we all find it in our lives. EDIT: And you "cast the first stone" by calling this discussion thread and Hubski "an echo chamber of irreligious supremacism". So I defended myself and Hubski.
I like how most of the time I've seen someone complaining about ad hominem responses on hubski, AD HOMINEM is spelled incorrectly. Why, the last time I was accused of an ad hominem, I was in fact accused of an ad homonym attack. That one might have been a predictive text error due to phone software, but it still makes me smile.
I'm only one voice here, but I think an argument is immediately stronger and more appealing when it's spelled correctly. Spelling & editing come from a different part of the brain from the passionate argument, so when writers temper their passion with reason, they are able to proofread, and be polite. What do you think Rico? Does someone's bad spelling make you proceed with caution?
For people who are speaking in their first language, I agree with you. If someone can't take the time to check that the language they've been using their whole life is correct, I find myself wondering how thorough/thoughtful they've been in coming to their views and conclusions. Of course, this excludes the occasion honest mistake.
Spelling is not always indicative of intelligence or competence, but in the vacuum of the internet where users are already grasping for contextual cues, spelling and grammar can go a long way toward creating the sense that a given user is a-- well, not a "reliable narrator" but a "reliable commenter," as it were. Also, to put forth an argument is to open the door to criticism. The accusation of an ad hominem attack, when the very accusation is incorrectly spelled or applied, certainly gives a reader an opportunity to doubt the veracity of the assertion. So, in isolated interactions, then yes, sometimes poor spelling does make me proceed with caution. However, if I have had prior interactions with a user, then I am more likely to let spelling, grammar or usage slide if I have already seen that they are a "reliable commenter" much in the same way that I would forgive malapropisms or other mistakes with an acquaintance who I know to be intelligent. If you are asking if I proceed with caution when I respond to comments with poor spelling as I think the user might be in an impassioned state, well then I'd have to say no, but I might word my response in such a way that I felt my meaning would immediately be apparent. The old truism bandied about amongst EFL teachers is that "one is truly fluent in a language when one can win an argument in it."
My original comment was a joke. Even if it were taken literally, I don't think hubski is an echo chamber, but how long do you think it will take when religion is referred to as archaic dogma and good for nothing? And how is this thread supposed to be open to all forms of spirituality and searches for it when religion is walked all over like that? Surely if hubski doesn't allow 'downvoting' then it should avoid being negative as well.
I never said that religion was "good for nothing". I have written extensively about its function. I never attack another person for their spirituality. I only ever express my own thoughts and feelings about spirituality and religion. If another person is offended by my own beliefs than I don't really care. I am always open to debate and discussion, and will defend my stance that most religious institutions are both "archaic" and "dogmatic". This should not be taboo to say. If you think it is wrong, I welcome you to thoughtfully challenge the statement.
"After all, in evolutionary terms, religion helped our species dream of the infinite, before the infinite was within our grasp. And if I were an ancient human, I would have believed in any religious system that I happened to be born within. Religion would have given me a reason to get up in the morning, and it would have comforted me from the knowledge of my own death." How do you know this to be true? That is, how do you know that religion helped our species to dream of the infinite before the infinite was in our grasp? That sounds like a rather outlandish claim, especially given that you started this article by suggesting a profound love of evidence. I think atheism is more likely to be the default position of ancient humans. After all, we are all born atheists. Religion is a learned phenomenon. Is there any reason to believe this would have been different in the past? Religion, is by its very nature, is coercive. It has been constantly been used by people in positions of power as a tool to dominate others (or to obtain power in the first place). Given that this has been a constant in all nearly all religions throughout recorded history it seems much more likely that religion originated as means of control.
Religions primary evolutionary function is to help us cope with the fact that life is finite. Current studies from thanatology suggest that chimpanzees have a poor understanding of death. But at some point in our evolution (most definitely before the arrival of modern humans) our genus grasped that life was finite, and likely invented a concept of afterlife in response to this realization (e.g., Homo neanderthalensis buried their dead). We also know from studies of the first societies with recorded literature and from studies of hunter gatherer tribes from the 19th and 20th centuries that most early human societies had no concept of religion, because everything was religion. This would not take the form of modern institutionalized religion, but all of life would be heavily influenced by supernatural belief (which is why I define was a requirement for "religion"). I really don't think this is that controversial of an assertion and rooted in evolutionary theory and available evidence. I don't even know how to respond to this. It has been demonstrated over and over again that humans have a natural inclination to have experiences that can be categorized as "spiritual" and all known human cultures have had a belief in some type of supernatural entity. So how could atheism be a our "default position". A supernatural belief structure helped pre-literate hunter gatherer societies A) explain the unexplainable, B) cope with death, and C) help them believe that someone "was on their side" and "cared about their struggle" in a world filled with death, hunger, disease, etc. This is a major function of religion that was co-opted by early agricultural civilizations. It doesn't mean that it was the origin of religion (or supernatural belief structures). It just means that it was a function (one of many; with others being more fundamental as ultimate cause) that developed in complex agricultural civilizations.That is, how do you know that religion helped our species to dream of the infinite before the infinite was in our grasp?
I think atheism is more likely to be the default position of ancient humans. After all, we are all born atheists. Religion is a learned phenomenon. Is there any reason to believe this would have been different in the past?
Religion, is by its very nature, is coercive. It has been constantly been used by people in positions of power as a tool to dominate others (or to obtain power in the first place). Given that this has been a constant in all nearly all religions throughout recorded history it seems much more likely that religion originated as means of control.
The human mind exists to find relations and discover and understand the world as to make better predictions and survive better. The human mind will attempt to to this to everything. So when a person asks why the sun rises, they are going to not know. That results in explanations being essentially made up, which results in religion. I think it's a natural state for an uninformed human to descend into. The creation of religion didn't happen on purpose, it happened by accident.
"I don’t define myself by my non-belief in Santa Claus. So why should I define myself by my non-belief in any supernatural being that is currently believed by most people in the world?" By 1740 BCE the Egyptians had a symbol for zero in accounting texts. Even 'nothing' has to have a name, otherwise you can't discuss it. And yes, considering yourself an "A-Theist" is perfectly legitimate for the same reason we need zero. If asked "What is 4 minus 4", how would you answer? In the same vein, when asked "Which of the multitude gods do you believe in?", you are left with no choice but to say you do not believe in mystery people, and you are an "A-Theist".
Please don't misunderstand me. The point was not to say that "atheism" is not a valid category or label if you are non-religious or don't believe in God. I was simply exploring an alternative way to conceptualize "religious" or "spiritual" experience if you are non-religious and I felt a positive descriptor was useful.