Imagine a world without organised religion, where it doesn’t affect people’s lives, but atheism still exists. What purpose would atheism fill in this scenario?
Imagine a world without organised religion, where it doesn’t affect people’s lives, but atheism still exists. What purpose would atheism fill in this scenario?
Atheism thus must have some identity purpose.
What I don’t understand is why it is an identity (apart from opposition to organised religion).
Why does it have to have purpose?
It’s a weird question.
The purpose of religion is to control society through communal beliefs. The sense of “purpose” that adherents are made to feel serves to further that control.
Atheism isn’t a religion and it doesn’t have a purpose.
It isn’t part of my “identity” any more than gravity is.
Atheism doesn’t replace religion… and trying to give it purpose is a little weird. In fact, there are a few atheist religions out there.
Yes, atheism obviously isn’t a religion and I see how it is a weird question. I mean purpose not in a way that resembles devotion or submission, but as an explanation for its existence.
AFAIK, gravity was understood differently before Newtonian physics, right? Different concepts of gravity serve a purpose.
Atheism is the lack of a belief. The lack of believing in gods serves as much purpose as the lack of believing in goblins.
What purpose does the lack of believing in goblins serve?
Well, personally, my lack of believing in goblins serves my sense of reality. I am extremely sure goblins are made up, so my lack of belief serves my understanding of consistency and coherence of the world. Were goblins real, we likely could interact with them, if I understood them correctly.
IIRC, most religions hold that one cannot interact with their deities directly - so even if theism had just a grain of truth, its truth would be so irrelevant and far from people’s lives (just another level of hierarchy) that I don’t understand how its belief or disbelief affects one’s sense of reality.
That makes no sense. You wouldn’t even know goblins existed if someone hadn’t told you stories about goblins.
Are you so easily swayed that your outlook on reality would have been altered just knowing about the existence of goblins in stories?
Yes, my sense of reality would be altered if one could just write magical beings into interactable existence.
Isn’t that what religion is?
I mean, really. You dismiss the existence of goblins because they’re myths, but not of an all-powerful, all-knowing god… which is also just a myth?
Not something that I suggested.
You claimed that merely knowing that goblins are a concept would alter your perception of reality. That’s ludicrous. I do not believe your perception of reality was altered when you learned that goblins are a concept unless you uncritically believed they existed, in which case, you need to work on your critical thinking skills.
But you seem to be stuck on ‘goblins.’ So let’s change it while still using the same basic metaphor:
The lack of believing in gods serves as much purpose as the lack of believing in snxxzxz.
What purpose does the lack of believing in snxxzxz serve?
snxxzxz or any other gibberish isn’t yet associated with meaning. Once some gibberish would get meaning AND become embodied (ie observable existence), yes my sense of reality would be altered. Are you sure this is a critical thinking failure?
Are you saying atheism is a form of disassociation or gibberish-making of theist beliefs? If yes, I would consider that tool a purpose/function of atheism.
Ummm… So, religion?
You’re so close to getting it!
It feels like you’re coming at this from the position of religiosity being the “default” and non-religiosity being abnormal, which I think is a flawed premise.
It also feels like you think of atheists as being anti-religion, which is also flawed.
Atheism is an identity only insofar as Christianity is an identity. Christianity isn’t what a person believes, it’s the word we use to describe their beliefs, to give a general idea of their culture. Atheism is just a way to describe the absence of that particular aspect of thought. The labeling isn’t important in and of itself, it’s just an identifier.
Are you suggesting that being atheist is unnatural? What do you mean by “actual purpose?”
Is this a high thought? It sounds like a high thought.
Yes, that would be a flawed premise, but I hope I am coming from a position of neither being a default for the sake of the discussion.
Anti-religion is just a subset of atheism; one could frame my question also as what remains in atheism without anti-religion.
Of course it is unnatural or do you believe apes have strong opinions about theism? Same goes for theism. Naturality is mostly irrelevant for complex sociocultural views, IMO. I find atheism beneficial, though.
I wish.
I think this puts a point on your confusion with the descriptor.
Do you believe ducks are convinced a god exists? If not, they’re atheist.
Are rocks convinced a god exists? I’d argue they aren’t sentient and thus not able to - they’re atheist.
Atheism doesn’t require an act of will, isn’t an identity, it only describes one particular thing (which we have a need to describe as religious people get all tizzy about it), just like “blue”, “tall” or “dizzy”. And to belabour the point, it actually describes the absence of a thing, and thus covers all options but one.
An analogous term for someone not believing in aliens could be analienist, you can be analienist regardless if there are aliens or not (as it only addresses the belief). It doesn’t also mean you’re anything else (like tall, handsome, or mysterious). It doesn’t require you to campaign against aliens, throw rocks at the sky, or go to analienist meetings.
As long as you don’t believe in aliens, you’re analienist.
Heh, anal ienist.
A lack of belief in gods. Which is what atheism means. You can be an atheist and pro-religion. My mother is an atheist but still goes to temple every week.
You really need to understand the meaning of the word.
A = lack of
Theism = belief in a god or gods.
That’s all it is. A lack of belief in any gods.
Why must it?
Also, why do you think atheism is an entire atheist’s identity and not just a small part of it? I’m an atheist. I’m also a Trekkie. I’d say Star Trek is a much bigger part of my life than atheism.
Also a much better source of morals (if you don’t think they are innate).
I agree 100%. Star Trek helped teach me about diversity and equality and respect for other cultures. Also the concept of talking things out before guns start going off.
I don’t consider it an identity, but it is a stable state for me: I do not believe in the existence of gods until further notice. This is what I mean when I say “I am an atheist”. It’s a shorthand way to express this stable state about me.
Moreover, opposing organized religion is not the primary reason that I don’t believe in the existence of gods.
If there were no religions, there would be no atheists. Or everyone would be, but they wouldn’t make up a name for it.
It’s just a title used to differentiate from Jewish, Christian, Muslim, etc. An atheist is the “None of the above” option.
If some people could breathe underwater, we would identify as air breathers, not because of any purpose that it fills, just so people know we don’t breathe underwater.
No it doesn’t. The only reason I bother calling myself an atheist is because believers keep insisting I have to share their beliefs. If they didn’t, I wouldn’t need the label.