Atheist but culturally religious?

[Mike Cl]

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.

The atheists that are building atheism into a culture or a set of rules to follow, attract other atheist that think that same set of rules are good ones.  So, if culture is formed it is formed using the 'should' rules not the universal atheist rule that there is not god.  I simply don't see atheism as a 'school of thought'. 

[Mike Cl]

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

Yes, that is the crux of the matter.  The religious want to make atheism into a culture so they can then attack that culture.  The religious simply cannot conceive of somebody not believing in their god.  So it is easier for their minds to lump all non-believers into one camp.  What an atheist 'believes in' is unknown.  Each one is different.  There is not a single unifying 'should' that binds them together.  If you want to know what they 'believe in' you have to ask them, unlike the religious, since there 'shoulds' are known.

[jonb]

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.

I am not skiming over anything you are wrong. Cause effect is a tenet of science. You are American are you saying the culture around you has no influence on you, if so why are you not British? The lack of belief has to affect culture as much as a belief does. I know Americans like to believe in the individual, and that all you think has been generated in your own head, but then why would anybody spend money on advertising?

You see culturally you are American and you presume like many Americans that American is a default position and if the rest of the world did not have all their little foibles they would all be just like you. As such you do not recognise your own culture and how it is affecting you, and as it is not examined you make presumptions, some of which I would say are false.

I pick and chose what I want as my personal ethical standards.

A primal American statement, refuting the influences of culture or the subconscious.

Might a little self examination be helpful? 

[Baruch]

Too much to follow .. at lunch break.  It has been argued by some, that being in a post-Christian era doesn't look as bad as it might be, because of this cultural-Christian stuff.  As if we will revert back to Pagan practices, and start sacrificing people in the midst of Stonehenge.  I think this is a post-Christian anxiety, rather than a legitimate prediction.  Ethics comes from more than one source ... and as long as one or more sources reinforce it, then we will probably remain civilized.

Edited: Jonb .. your insight into Americans is spot on.  As fish, we don't realize we are breathing water ... we have to be taken out of the American sea onto try land or fresh water ... and then we realize we are operating mostly at an unconscious level (assuming that even exists).  Perhaps folks from smaller countries don't have that presumption ... though I think classically this happened in ancient China and ancient India.  Which is to say, it is much easier for an American to avoid cognitive dissonance.

[stromboli]

1. Ethics is moral social behavior. Atheism is disbelief in god. Moral social behavior comes from a commonality of agreed upon ideas concerning human social behavior. Atheism is lack of belief. Belief is not the same as behavior.

2. Secular versus religious is a dividing point between the two in terms of, for instance, the constitutional separation of church and state. We already have a concept of secularism in that respect- not praying in schools, posting the 10 commandments outside the court, etc.

3. You are also equating culture with religion. Granted that the two are often intermingled, but by definition they don't have to be. And culture as the foundation of ethics depends on the culture. You can argue that aspect ad infinitum, which is what will probably happen with this thread. If in terms of applicable ethics, the extremes being witch burnings and stoning adulterers versus merely condemning those actions verbally, you will never come to a consensus because every separate aspect will vary with different cultures.

[Mike Cl]

I am not skiming over anything you are wrong. Cause effect is a tenet of science. You are American are you saying the culture around you has no influence on you, if so why are you not British? The lack of belief has to affect culture as much as a belief does. I know Americans like to believe in the individual, and that all you think has been generated in your own head, but then why would anybody spend money on advertising?

You see culturally you are American and you presume like many Americans that American is a default position and if the rest of the world did not have all their little foibles they would all be just like you. As such you do not recognise your own culture and how it is affecting you, and as it is not examined you make presumptions, some of which I would say are false.
A primal American statement, refuting the influences of culture or the subconscious.

Might a little self examination be helpful?

Okay, Jon, let's see if I can make myself clearer.  I am a US American.  That culture affects me daily.  My culture is reflected in our civil laws and in the expected modes of behavior.  For the most part, I suppose, I reflect that culture.  To a point.  Not all of my culture is informed by christainity.  Much of it is, but not all.  All manner of groups want to have more of an influence.  And all manner of groups have had an influence.  So, my culture has many different influences shaping that culture.  Atheists are only a small percentage of that culture.  And there really is not a single group of atheists.  There are organizations, such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation, whose members are mainly atheist, who want to have more of an impact.  There are other groups of secular humanists who desire that as well.  Those groups that are associated with atheism, make it plain what they reason to be the best for a society.  Just being atheist does not.  It does not tell you what a person believes or thinks by simply saying 'I'm atheist'.  So, I don't really understand what it is when you talk of an atheist culture.

What I personally think and how I behave is very heavily influenced by my US culture.  But that does mean I agree with all of that culture.  I have always reflected upon how my culture impacts me personally.  The morals of my culture are a group thing--the group developed those concepts and rules over the life of my country.  I do not dismiss that lightly.  Nor do I take it as ironclad, either.  If do, have always, reflected on whether or not the cultural norms are norms that fit me.  So, I chose what are to be my norms--and those may change with testing and further reflection. 

I have been openly atheistic for only a short while.  But by my saying I'm atheist does not and did not change my own personal moral code.  That is evolving as I live and experience.  I have always had a loose guide--the golden rule--but even that changes in specifics from time to time. 

And yes, self examination is always recommended.  And for me, ongoing.  My own personal culture was not impacted by my openly stating I'm atheist.  My ethics did not change.  My behavior did not change.  And when I tell you I'm atheist, you don't know anything about what my ethics are.  To learn that you would have to ask questions about that.   

[jonb]

Too much to follow .. at lunch break.  It has been argued by some, that being in a post-Christian era doesn't look as bad as it might be, because of this cultural-Christian stuff.  As if we will revert back to Pagan practices, and start sacrificing people in the midst of Stonehenge.  I think this is a post-Christian anxiety, rather than a legitimate prediction.  Ethics comes from more than one source ... and as long as one or more sources reinforce it, then we will probably remain civilized.

I would say the mark of civilisation is not the dogma it enforces, but its willingness to place its principals under scrutiny. Also to my mind many of the open outward looking pagan societies were far more ethical than the christards that came and massacred them.

Mike CL
Once the notion of there is no gawd, no final arbiter is presented as truth, then any concepts of a universal divinely imposed good or bad also falls. Thus any principals we may have have by nature to be created by ourselves. I know you say that atheists have nothing in common, but in that there is no off-the-shelf ethics for an atheist like there is for a christard all we atheists do have something in common.

It is interesting how many people have presumed I am putting forward the idea of a set of commandments as the only way for a group to be ethical. I answer this as minds who are still stuck in christard thinking. No I think we have commonalities because of our realisation there is no gawd. The first most evident fact it seems to me is that athiests have to think for themselves, and as such this will produce a very different understanding of ethics to those that have traditionally been imposed on us.
So is that not worth exploring?   

[aitm]

The first most evident fact it seems to me is that athiests have to think for themselves,


and as such this will produce a very different understanding of ethics to those that have traditionally been imposed on us.
 

I am still doing a poor job of following your suggestion. The first part of your statement above would imply you think atheists may not think for themselves regarding ethics, preferring to follow established ethics put forth by religions. I have a hard time with that as the very act of becoming an atheist pretty much declares that much thought has gone into it. Recognizing that many of established ethics and morality are to the betterment of humanity I see no problem with those and those that are not, that are also complimentary to some of the good ones by being part of the same book can be derided as religious drivel and ignored.

What exactly do you mean by  " will produce a very different understanding of ethics to those that have traditionally been imposed on us."?

We are already aware that morality and ethics did not come from the gods, "we" prescribe to those because they have been shown to be inherently good. We already mock and ridicule those bads ones "imposed" on us and ignore them.

Can you give us a little more of an example as to your thinking? Perhaps you are playing football and I am thinking pool.

[Mike Cl]

Mike CL
Once the notion of there is no gawd, no final arbiter is presented as truth, then any concepts of a universal divinely imposed good or bad also falls. Thus any principals we may have have by nature to be created by ourselves. I know you say that atheists have nothing in common, but in that there is no off-the-shelf ethics for an atheist like there is for a christard all we atheists do have something in common.

Yeah, I suppose you could say that that is what we have in common.  If so, so what?  What I mean is, just because one says they are atheist does not mean they have any interest in philosophy or ethics or morals?  Or cares?  A person may simply examine the world and say that there is no room for a god.  And leave it at that.  On the other hand, it is interesting to me to know what a fellow atheist thinks the foundation of morals and ethics is.  But that is just my own interest.  Not all atheists seem to care all that much.  So, like you, Jon, I find that an interesting discussion to have.

[Mike Cl]

Too much to follow .. at lunch break.  It has been argued by some, that being in a post-Christian era doesn't look as bad as it might be, because of this cultural-Christian stuff.  As if we will revert back to Pagan practices, and start sacrificing people in the midst of Stonehenge.  I think this is a post-Christian anxiety, rather than a legitimate prediction.  Ethics comes from more than one source ... and as long as one or more sources reinforce it, then we will probably remain civilized.

Seems to me that if we rid the world (never happen, I know that) of the Christian 'ethic' the world would be more ethical. 

[jonb]

I am still doing a poor job of following your suggestion. The first part of your statement above would imply you think atheists may not think for themselves regarding ethics, preferring to follow established ethics put forth by religions. I have a hard time with that as the very act of becoming an atheist pretty much declares that much thought has gone into it. Recognizing that many of established ethics and morality are to the betterment of humanity I see no problem with those and those that are not, that are also complimentary to some of the good ones by being part of the same book can be derided as religious drivel and ignored.

What exactly do you mean by  " will produce a very different understanding of ethics to those that have traditionally been imposed on us."?

We are already aware that morality and ethics did not come from the gods, "we" prescribe to those because they have been shown to be inherently good. We already mock and ridicule those bads ones "imposed" on us and ignore them.

Can you give us a little more of an example as to your thinking? Perhaps you are playing football and I am thinking pool.

It might be we are both talking football just what sort?

Anyways; there is a reason why I am talking about atheist ethics rather than secular ethics. I think secular ethics are driven to a large part from the religious wars of the renaissance to the 18th century and to a large part deal with the interaction of differing groups of christards and others who have some doctrinal differences, protestant catholic sort of jaz.
I find that much of the religious freedoms given to us by secular ethics are about freedom to think religiously, not about freedom from religion. On this forum I have seen the stories of discrimination at American schools picking on atheist children where they would not dream of attacking catholic or jewish kids.
So what is an athiest?
For me yes you can admit there is no gawd and leave it at that, but if you want to think or talk about it then to an extent you have to try to live it. For me a person who criticises christards but then lives by the values that they themselves have just criticised is not so much an atheist as a hypocrite.

Seems to me that if we rid the world (never happen, I know that) of the Christian 'ethic' the world would be more ethical. 

So an atheist ethic is discernible. Just being free of gawd creates a more ethical culture, see you said it yourself so athiests have a commonality and it could however unlikely that might be produce a result and in your view that result would be advantageous. I am glad to have won you over. 

[GSOgymrat]

Atheists are very different. As an atheist I might decide that the biological imperative is the foundation of ethical behavior, that the goal of living is to reproduce and have successful offspring, successful meaning they continue to reproduce. To that end I might open a reproductive center and trick women into becoming pregnant with my sperm. I could have hundreds of offspring that would be well cared for, many more than I could support on my own. What I'm doing isn't unethical because the purpose of life is to compete and survive, not be truthful or treat others well. Those behaviors might be of value but only if they successfully propagate genetic legacy. There is no "cosmic justice," a silly religious notion, and if I can outsmart the people around me and produce children I am behaving in an ethical manner. What would be unethical would be the state trying to curtail people's freedom to reproduce freely.

The biological imperative is an example of ethics not based on Abrahamic religions. This cowbird behavior is also morally abhorrent to most people. The reason most people from differing cultures would find the previous scenario wrong is because, in my opinion, religion is an expression of adaptive moral behaviors that evolved from primates over time and were never handed down by a supernatural agent or religious authority. Morals come from the bottom up, not the top down. The reason no one likes a cheat isn't because we were taught cheaters are bad, or God says cheating is bad, but because we have a visceral, emotional reaction to unfairness. Babies get mad when they believe other babies are getting more attention or food, they don't have to be taught to throw a fit. So I believe that Christianity doesn't own compassion, charity or wonder. All religions were built on moral reasoning that already existed in human cognition, and I don't have to believe in religion to believe in those values. Perhaps it might look like I'm aping Christians but I prefer to think they are aping apes.

[Mike Cl]

So an atheist ethic is discernible. Just being free of gawd creates a more ethical culture, see you said it yourself so athiests have a commonality and it could however unlikely that might be produce a result and in your view that result would be advantageous. I am glad to have won you over.

You had me 'won' over from the start. :))  I did not say that a monolithic atheistic moral existed.  As GSO suggests, morality comes from below and not from on high.  That means that the Christian ethic was in existence prior to their existence.  They used part of it.  Taking away god from the mix would make the moral laws clearly human. But that does not mean that all would agree with what would be moral or not.  I am an atheist and I have my own personal moral code; I developed this code while living in a world that accepts god and while I was actively searching for that god and while it was dawning on me that there was not a god.  My moral code did not depend upon god nor god's existence. 

But it is a fine thing to do--talk about what is really moral for a society to follow--god or no god.

[Baruch]

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   

Thanks for the shoutout, Stromboli ;-)  It really is two different things, and both are complicated of course ...

In one case we have the idealization where we are starting an all new society from scratch on some unoccupied island someplace.  The problem with that is you can't start with people "tabula rasa" ... sorry John Locke ... you have to start with adults who are already acculturated somewhat.  With children you get Lord Of The Flies, but with adults you get Robinson Crusoe and Friday.

In the other case, the realistic one, you have a bunch of squabbling auto mechanics on a bus, going down the highway at 60 mph, while they do auto work on it.

Another factor I see ... it depends on what you think culture is.  Is it some kind of collective unconscious that changes slowly over time, or is it something superficial ... our mistaken labeling for whatever people are doing at a given time, regardless of why they are doing it (are Moderns going to soccer/football really the same as Romans going to the Colosseum?).  Many people don't believe in an unconscious, let alone a collective one.

So yes, depending on your stated or unstated assumptions, one can re-examine things ... like any individual or collective body can ... but it is hard to do that outside the context of who you have been so far.

[Baruch]

Yes, that is the crux of the matter.  The religious want to make atheism into a culture so they can then attack that culture.  The religious simply cannot conceive of somebody not believing in their god.  So it is easier for their minds to lump all non-believers into one camp.  What an atheist 'believes in' is unknown.  Each one is different.  There is not a single unifying 'should' that binds them together.  If you want to know what they 'believe in' you have to ask them, unlike the religious, since there 'shoulds' are known.

Atheism wrapped in revolutionary politics, was once a very particular "should" with specific characteristics.  Fortunately that particular ideology has receded.  Today atheism does seem individualist and libertarian ... not something tolerated in those other political systems.