Atheist but culturally religious?

[jonb]

In truth I get disappointed with many atheists.

OK so many people find gawd is a silly idea, but then seem content not to think through what rejecting that doctrine means.

They seem content once gawd is rejected to not question the morality that came with that notion, so essentially live lives driven by the same ethical and moral doctrines as the religious.

When reading many things written by atheists I am reminded of the end of 'Animal Farm'

“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

― George Orwell

Are there others like me who feel it is useless incessantly quoting the bable to prove how superior a person is, but maybe to start thinking what it means to be atheist and what sort of culture this idea could produce, or am I on my own?

[josephpalazzo]

There's nothing wrong for an atheist to celebrate Halloween, Christmas, or any other religious based holiday. It's no more offensive than celebrating the anniversary of the first Superman comic book. Religion is fantasy. It's only dangerous when it is used as a tool to implement an agenda, particularly, a political agenda.  Sure, as an atheist I will question such things as morality, education and the raising of children under the yoke of religion. But it doesn't mean I will abandon all cultural activities. I should be able to pick what's good and what's bad, dissect what's religious and what is not. Accept some, reject others.

[jonb]

To make it clear I am talking about ethics not party hats.

[Mike Cl]

In truth I get disappointed with many atheists.

OK so many people find gawd is a silly idea, but then seem content not to think through what rejecting that doctrine means.

They seem content once gawd is rejected to not question the morality that came with that notion, so essentially live lives driven by the same ethical and moral doctrines as the religious.

When reading many things written by atheists I am reminded of the end of 'Animal Farm'
― George Orwell

Are there others like me who feel it is useless incessantly quoting the bable to prove how superior a person is, but maybe to start thinking what it means to be atheist and what sort of culture this idea could produce, or am I on my own?

A couple of problems with your observations, from my point of view.  Atheism is not a culture.  It is not one consolidated point of view.  It is mainly negative in that is simply says that god/gods do not exist.  It does not, then replace those gods/god with another philosophy.  I see your disappointment as a lack of labor on your part.  When you rejected religions/god, it is up to you to chose what is moral and what is not--not another atheist.  You have to decide what is the right philosophy for you.  If you don't then you will continue to be disappointed.  One of the benefits of being in an organized religion is that you do not have to think about or reason about what is moral, right and good--or what your purpose in life is.  That is all spoon fed to you.  Atheism does not supply any of that; so if you want it, then you have to build it yourself.

Understand--atheism does not produce any 'culture'.  It can't.  You have to find a culture that fits what you think is a positive culture.  So, quit seeing what you don't want and start searching for what you do want.  Only you can do that for yourself.  Atheists will not spoon feed that to you. 

[Mike Cl]

To make it clear I am talking about ethics not party hats.

to you, what is 'ethics' and how is that determined?

[stromboli]

A couple of problems with your observations, from my point of view.  Atheism is not a culture.  It is not one consolidated point of view.  It is mainly negative in that is simply says that god/gods do not exist.  It does not, then replace those gods/god with another philosophy.  I see your disappointment as a lack of labor on your part.  When you rejected religions/god, it is up to you to chose what is moral and what is not--not another atheist.  You have to decide what is the right philosophy for you.  If you don't then you will continue to be disappointed.  One of the benefits of being in an organized religion is that you do not have to think about or reason about what is moral, right and good--or what your purpose in life is.  That is all spoon fed to you.  Atheism does not supply any of that; so if you want it, then you have to build it yourself.

Understand--atheism does not produce any 'culture'.  It can't.  You have to find a culture that fits what you think is a positive culture.  So, quit seeing what you don't want and start searching for what you do want.  Only you can do that for yourself.  Atheists will not spoon feed that to you. 

I like Mike.  What he said. Ethics by definition being moral social behavior.

[TomFoolery]

A couple of problems with your observations, from my point of view.  Atheism is not a culture.  It is not one consolidated point of view.  It is mainly negative in that is simply says that god/gods do not exist.  It does not, then replace those gods/god with another philosophy. 

I'll agree with you there, atheism isn't a culture, but a lot of atheists make it into one. There are many militant atheists who take their own lack of beliefs and observations and mock the religious for it. I don't know many atheists in person, but the few I have met at the local book club here are people who have turned atheism into a battle cry to be antagonistic and downright contrary to any kind of religious symbol. When you spend so much time tearing down religion because you don't believe in one, well, that to me becomes a type of culture.

True, not all atheists are like that, but not all Christians demand to have the 10 commandments posted outside of court houses either. I think atheism is a school of thought that lends itself to superiority quite often.

[stromboli]

But we are back to a set of ethics as defined by what? Atheism is a stance of being non religious. Does that imply a set of ethics? I imagine  Baruch might have a response to that, but I would first of all substitute secular for atheist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics

Secular ethics is a branch of moral philosophy in which ethics is based solely on human faculties such as logic, reason or moral intuition, and not derived from purported supernatural revelation or guidance (which is the source of religious ethics).

[aitm]

They seem content once gawd is rejected to not question the morality that came with that notion, so essentially live lives driven by the same ethical and moral doctrines as the religious.

Are there others like me who feel it is useless incessantly quoting the bable to prove how superior a person is, but maybe to start thinking what it means to be atheist and what sort of culture this idea could produce, or am I on my own?

Not really sure I understand what you are saying. Morality is a construct of humanity that was made part of the various regional religions. Just because a thing is in a religious text and generally moral and useful to society is no reason to discard it because of association. We can argue against the hypocrisy of the believers who spout scripture for one good "moray" by presenting other "morays" that are now considered useless or dangerous.

If you're suggesting that atheists need to produce our own moral and ethical "book" so that "our" culture can gain recognition, I don't think we can gain anything by producing a book that may in large part mirror the same tenets of various religions and then subject "us" to ridicule that we would reject religion and then turn around and embrace their tenets.

[jonb]

A couple of problems with your observations, from my point of view.  Atheism is not a culture.  It is not one consolidated point of view.  It is mainly negative in that is simply says that god/gods do not exist.  It does not, then replace those gods/god with another philosophy.  I see your disappointment as a lack of labor on your part.  When you rejected religions/god, it is up to you to chose what is moral and what is not--not another atheist.  You have to decide what is the right philosophy for you.  If you don't then you will continue to be disappointed.  One of the benefits of being in an organized religion is that you do not have to think about or reason about what is moral, right and good--or what your purpose in life is.  That is all spoon fed to you.  Atheism does not supply any of that; so if you want it, then you have to build it yourself.

Understand--atheism does not produce any 'culture'.  It can't.  You have to find a culture that fits what you think is a positive culture.  So, quit seeing what you don't want and start searching for what you do want.  Only you can do that for yourself.  Atheists will not spoon feed that to you.

There are sets of principals that have guided European/western culture, a major influence on what those principals are has been driven by the church in its many forms. If we are in a situation where the church is being rejected then a re evaluation of those principals I would say has to be studied.
To not study those principals that have influenced our cultures would leave a state where the culture and our attitudes are still driven by the church's dogmas and as such it would not matter if we were atheist or christard because we see the world and react to the world in the same way.

Culture is not imposed on people it is an expression of their collective ideas, thus if people are atheist that will influence the culture, unless that atheism is just something that is mouthed, not practised.

What I see are a lot of people who have been butt hurt by different churches or mom and dad's belief systems saying 'I be an atheist then suck on that', but then carrying on like all the other christards.

I feel unless atheists start to set their own moral compasses, they are using those of the christards and as such they are to all practical purposes christards   

[TomFoolery]

I feel unless atheists start to set their own moral compasses, they are using those of the christards and as such they are to all practical purposes christards   

Like an atheist 10 commandments?

I think it's better unwritten. When you write down moral rules, you just give people room to point at you and call you a hypocrite.

I liken it to my run time. If I'm trying to run a 15 minute two mile and I don't wear a watch, I usually come in well under my time because I have no idea how well I'm doing so I give it all I have. If I do wear a watch and constantly monitor my pace, I've always tended to run slower. It's subconscious, but it's like my body telling me that I can slow down and still meet my goal. That's not making me the best runner I can be, it just makes me an adequate runner. I view writing down a moral code in much the same way. When you make things black and white, people are less inclined to try harder.

[josephpalazzo]

There's no point in re-inventing the wheel. As aitm has pointed out, discarding because of an association is an exercise in futility. Rather take what we have and make it better. What I suspect is that you are looking for a clash of cultures. There is too much of that already.   

[jonb]

Not really sure I understand what you are saying. Morality is a construct of humanity that was made part of the various regional religions. Just because a thing is in a religious text and generally moral and useful to society is no reason to discard it because of association. We can argue against the hypocrisy of the believers who spout scripture for one good "moray" by presenting other "morays" that are now considered useless or dangerous.

If you're suggesting that atheists need to produce our own moral and ethical "book" so that "our" culture can gain recognition, I don't think we can gain anything by producing a book that may in large part mirror the same tenets of various religions and then subject "us" to ridicule that we would reject religion and then turn around and embrace their tenets.

I am far from suggesting that. However I think a world without a gawd looks like a very different place, from a world inhabited by spirits and voodoo. Living a world without a gawd is going to produce some commonalities for those living in it and an exploration of that might be a useful act.

There's no point in re-inventing the wheel. As aitm has pointed out, discarding because of an association is an exercise in futility. Rather take what we have and make it better. What I suspect is that you are looking for a clash of cultures. There is too much of that already.   

If the dimensions of the wheel are wrong then it is worth working on it to get it right. The exact value of Pi we are still working on you seem to be proposing the value of Pi given in the bable is close enough and needs no further work.
Actually what I am calling for is self examination not just borrowing others dis-proven ideas. 

[stromboli]

Somebody came up with an atheist 10 commandments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics

Again, I like secular ethics better; whatever. I'm on the same page with JP and aitm. You shouldn't try to reinvent the wheel, but over time the change in viewpoint will serve to modify the mindset of how ethics are applied.

[Mike Cl]

There are sets of principals that have guided European/western culture, a major influence on what those principals are has been driven by the church in its many forms. If we are in a situation where the church is being rejected then a re evaluation of those principals I would say has to be studied.
To not study those principals that have influenced our cultures would leave a state where the culture and our attitudes are still driven by the church's dogmas and as such it would not matter if we were atheist or christard because we see the world and react to the world in the same way.

Culture is not imposed on people it is an expression of their collective ideas, thus if people are atheist that will influence the culture, unless that atheism is just something that is mouthed, not practised.

What I see are a lot of people who have been butt hurt by different churches or mom and dad's belief systems saying 'I be an atheist then suck on that', but then carrying on like all the other christards.

I feel unless atheists start to set their own moral compasses, they are using those of the christards and as such they are to all practical purposes christards   

There is a central point you seem to skim over.  Atheism does not build anything.  It is simply a statement of not believing in god/gods.  That's it.  Atheists do not agree on anything else.  So, you are down on a group of people for not doing something.  And that something would be impossible for them to do; supply a coherent set of moral or ethical standards.  That is NOT the job of an atheist.  If you want that, then as Strom suggests, look to 'secular humanism' or something of that sort.  They are happy to supply you with a set of ethics, morals and standards.  You keep looking in an empty drawer and putting that drawer down for not having anything in it.  Well, if that bothers you so much, fill that drawer up yourself.  Or quit whining about it. 

I am an atheist.  I abhor organized religion.  But that does not mean that I disagree with everything organized religion does or believes.  I pick and chose what I want as my personal ethical standards.  That is my job.  Not yours, not a minister, not a spouse, not another atheist.  MY job.

You want atheists to set there own moral compass as a group?!  Impossible!!!  That makes no sense.  How can one construct a culture from 'I don't believe in god!'???  A group of people set the rules for acceptable human behavior within that group.  That is a culture.  Atheists are NOT a group--not in a classical sense.  Christians are a group for what they believe to be true.  They are a 'group'.  Atheists are not a group for there is not one commonly shared thought--except there is not god.  That makes it impossible to form a culture.  You are simply beating you head against a brick wall.  But if that feels good to you, then keep on.