Regardless, atheists are organised into groups - I wouldn't call it religion, however massive atheistic organisation exist, and one huge one being Atheist Alliance.
Here are their bylaws -
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, but (depending on their subgroup) there's always a set of beliefs that they adhere to, in accordance with their belief system. May it be the Catholic or Buddshist or Westboro Baptist...
...and religous people have disagreements on fundamental beliefs and whats fundamental.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Regardless, atheists are organised into groups - I wouldn't call it religion, however massive atheistic organisation exist, and one huge one being Atheist Alliance.Here are their bylaws -
There are atheist groups sure. Like there are black groups and homosexual groups. Those aren't founded out of atheistic believes usually (or black or gay believes) but in order to protect themselves against discrimination. Although there are of course also groups that take atheism as a springboard to create belief systems...but that's a different story altogether.
Originally posted by Deadline
People with religous beliefs have disagreements on fundamental issues. Muslims, Christians etc.
I know. I don't think it relates to the point as "Religious" is not a belief system, so differences in opinion on fundamental issues make a lot of sense.
Perhaps you mean something different, could you elaborate your point?
Originally posted by Bardock42
I know. I don't think it relates to the point as "Religious" is not a belief system, so differences in opinion on fundamental issues make a lot of sense.Perhaps you mean something different, could you elaborate your point?
Well its getting a bit late but weve moved on from atheism or theism being a belief system, they're individual beliefs. Thats not my point, if thats what you think I was saying.
Originally posted by Bardock42
There are atheist groups sure. Like there are black groups and homosexual groups. Those aren't founded out of atheistic believes usually (or black or gay believes) but in order to protect themselves against discrimination. Although there are of course also groups that take atheism as a springboard to create belief systems...but that's a different story altogether.
Black and homosexual groups cannot really be compared here at all. Being black or homosexual isn't an ideology one can adapt or discard at will.
If we read their mission statement it clearly states -
AAI'S VISION
AAI's vision is to transform society into one that supports and respects a worldview based on the values of reason, empiricism and naturalism, and respects and protects the separation of religion and government. (Adopted Jan. 2009)
AAI'S MISSION
To develop and provide educational, advocacy, and community-building programs for the atheist community that assist towards fulfilling the above vision.
There is a goal and a mission statement - and those include promoting, spreading and influencing atheist ideology in order to transform a society or societies. It seeks influence, just like theism does.
In order to have your atheist group join you must function democratically - so there are universal values attached to this, and one of those is democracy, for example.
An atheist not belonging to any atheistic group, is much like Christian not belonging to a church, or Jewish person not being part of Synagogue.
Those same Christians and Jews cannot equally claim that neither Judaism nor Christianity are organised.
I am NOT claiming atheism is a religion - I am claiming it is an ideology and that it is organised.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Black and homosexual groups cannot really be compared here at all. Being black or homosexual isn't an ideology one can adapt or discard at will.If we read their mission statement it clearly states -
AAI'S VISION
AAI's vision is to transform society into one that supports and respects a worldview based on the values of reason, empiricism and naturalism, and respects and protects the separation of religion and government. (Adopted Jan. 2009)AAI'S MISSION
To develop and provide educational, advocacy, and community-building programs for the atheist community that assist towards fulfilling the above vision.There is a goal and a mission statement - and those include promoting, spreading and influencing atheist ideology in order to transform a society or societies. It seeks influence, just like theism does.
In order to have your atheist group join you must function democratically - so there are universal values attached to this, and one of those is democracy, for example.An atheist not belonging to any atheistic group, is much like Christian not belonging to a church, or Jewish person not being part of Synagogue.
Those same Christians and Jews cannot equally claim that neither Judaism nor Christianity are organised.I am NOT claiming atheism is a religion - I am claiming it is an ideology and that it is organised.
But Atheims is not an ideology. Perhaps the Atheist Alliance has an ideology inspired by atheism, but not all atheists adhere to their ideology. But again many atheist groups (and as far as I can tell the Atheist Alliance) can be compared to certain homosexual and black groups in that they are collections of people fighting for rights. I am not sure if you are right in that you can just discard that believe, but I will concede that it is a possibility. Regardless, they are more like a political lobby (like the NAACP for example) than a Religious organization.
But if you point is just are some atheists organized, yeah that's true. I don't think it matters though.
Originally posted by Deadline
I know. It depends on your personality. That maybe your opinion but other people will differ.
thats exactly the point though. Atheists could have such a wide variety of beliefs that there is no reason to think atheism proper is a belief system.
Originally posted by Deadline
C'mon now religous people disagree all the time.
not really. There are contensious issues within each system, but fundamentally, there is agreement on core issues. Whether or not morality is subjective, in most systems of belief, is pretty fundamental.
Originally posted by Deadline
You don't have to have anything written down and it doesn't have to be official.
well, yes, it would have to be, unless you are saying that the individual belief system of each individual atheist represents its own individual atheist "belief system", in which case, the prefix "atheist" becomes a useless distinction.
Like, think about belief systems as a constelation of individual beliefs. Sym, bardock and I will have some of these in common, but certainly not all, and few other than "god doesn't exist" with regard to religion (it would be much more informative to describe the overlap in our personal belief systems through socio-political terms, rather than "atheism"😉. You and I would have overlap between individual beliefs. However this does not mean we share an entire system of beliefs.
Now, of course, there could be argument about how much, or which beliefs in particular, need to overlap to form a belief system, but in terms of atheism, the only given is "God doesn't exist", clearly not enough for it to be a system in itself
Originally posted by Deadline
If you're going to make that argument then I could say that theism doesn't make you act like anything either
yes, I mentioned this in my first reply to you
"theism" and "atheism" are not belief systems.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Regardless, atheists are organised into groups - I wouldn't call it religion, however massive atheistic organisation exist, and one huge one being Atheist Alliance.Here are their bylaws -
yes, and there are many, many "atheists" who have problems with such groups.
If you want to deconstruct this stuff further, I only call myself an atheist as a sort of short-hand to avoid having to explain what are personal and complex beliefs to people. In this thread, it really hasn't become necessary to distinguish between explicit and implicit atheism.
For instance, like myself, Sam Harris thinks it is foolhardy to identify as an atheist. He talks about more "goal-oriented" reasons, but on a philosophical level, there is no reason to identify with one's non-belief in something, in fact, you CANT identify with non-belief.
I'd argue that the AA as a socio-political group (look at the by laws, it is all about politics) does have a set of beliefs that they try and enforce on members, and they might constitute a system, but this is far removed from philosophical atheism, or the mere concept that one doesn't believe in god, called atheism.
What I think you are pointing out is just a problem with language to differentiate certain phenomenon. The social organization Atheist Alliance certainly has no monopoly over the term atheist, and their by-laws are much more concerned with social organization than they are with the fact that people don't believe in God.
Originally posted by inimalist
thats exactly the point though. Atheists could have such a wide variety of beliefs that there is no reason to think atheism proper is a belief system.not really. There are contensious issues within each system, but fundamentally, there is agreement on core issues. Whether or not morality is subjective, in most systems of belief, is pretty fundamental.
well, yes, it would have to be, unless you are saying that the individual belief system of each individual atheist represents its own individual atheist "belief system", in which case, the prefix "atheist" becomes a useless distinction.
Like, think about belief systems as a constelation of individual beliefs. Sym, bardock and I will have some of these in common, but certainly not all, and few other than "god doesn't exist" with regard to religion (it would be much more informative to describe the overlap in our personal belief systems through socio-political terms, rather than "atheism"😉. You and I would have overlap between individual beliefs. However this does not mean we share an entire system of beliefs.
Now, of course, there could be argument about how much, or which beliefs in particular, need to overlap to form a belief system, but in terms of atheism, the only given is "God doesn't exist", clearly not enough for it to be a system in itself
yes, I mentioned this in my first reply to you
"theism" and "atheism" are not belief systems.
yes, and there are many, many "atheists" who have problems with such groups.
If you want to deconstruct this stuff further, I only call myself an atheist as a sort of short-hand to avoid having to explain what are personal and complex beliefs to people. In this thread, it really hasn't become necessary to distinguish between explicit and implicit atheism.
For instance, like myself, Sam Harris thinks it is foolhardy to identify as an atheist. He talks about more "goal-oriented" reasons, but on a philosophical level, there is no reason to identify with one's non-belief in something, in fact, you CANT identify with non-belief.
I'd argue that the AA as a socio-political group (look at the by laws, it is all about politics) does have a set of beliefs that they try and enforce on members, and they might constitute a system, but this is far removed from philosophical atheism, or the mere concept that one doesn't believe in god, called atheism.
What I think you are pointing out is just a problem with language to differentiate certain phenomenon. The social organization Atheist Alliance certainly has no monopoly over the term atheist, and their by-laws are much more concerned with social organization than they are with the fact that people don't believe in God.
Roman Catholic church has no monopoly over the term Christian either just as it doesn't have the monopoly over the term theist.
Moreover, you yourself have pointed out that Christianity or Islam (being a better example) do not mainly concern itself with worshiping God and loving Jesus or Muhammad, but rather social structure that fits into their bylaws and their belief system.
They lobby greatly for their laws and systems to be put into place for ''better society''.
American Christians take issues with abortions, Muslims lobby to get the Sharia law imposed...etc.
You cannot be suggesting that religions are NOT social organizations - because that's what they are these days more than ever. From dictating morality to dictating conduct to dietary laws even as far as how government should be run.
So no, I don't think there is a problem in the language, at the end of the day, it is the same thing. The only upper hand religions have over the Atheists is that they had thousands of years to properly coordinate and organize themselves - and still they divide and differ and the only thing connecting them is the sole believe that there is a God and another person is the son or prophet of that God. Other than that - their institutions differ from slightly to radically.
lol, yes, but, atheist =/= atheist alliance
as I explained, there are many people who would fall into the semantic category "atheist", who would be against even self-identification with the term, let alone forming a group based on that as a principle.
the argument you are making is akin to saying: "because there are Muslims, who are theists, theism itself is a belief structure"
EDIT: thus, the AA, like Muslims are to theism, is a sub-category within the group which would be called atheists. Because not all atheists are part of the AA, atheism becomes a necessary, but insufficent requesite for being an AA. There is something beyond being simply an atheists that unites them, be it political motivation or the desire to have a social community or whatever.
EDIT EDIT: so, in terms of the overlapping constelations of beliefs that individuals have, the specific disbelief in God is NOT what unites the AA, similar to how the belief that a non-specific god exists is not enough to unite Christianity and Islam under the same belief structure. What is relevant to the AA beleif structure are specifically the questions of socio-political organization, which many atheists are against for both utilitarian and philosophical reasons.
Originally posted by Bardock42
But if you point is just are some atheists organized, yeah that's true. I don't think it matters though.
Atheists (at least most of them) claim that they are not part of any organized religion.
Now, with the evidence provided, it seems like Atheists themselves also have organizations.
Which means they are organized.
These same people despise the organization of Churches, yet they themselves created organizations for the promotion of Atheism?
Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
Isn't that hypocrisy?
No
Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
Atheists (at least most of them) claim that they are not part of any organized religion.
Most of them aren't. Even most of the ones organized in groups aren't.
Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
Now, with the evidence provided, it seems like Atheists themselves also have organizations.
Which means they are organized.
Those are certain groups of people who collected themselves under the banner though, it's in no way the spiritual leadership of the atheists. It's a completely secular, political organization like so many other minority groups.
Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
These same people despise the organization of Churches, yet they themselves created organizations for the promotion of Atheism?
It's not hypocrisy though. Certain atheists despise certain organized Religions for certain reasons generally pertaining to anything but the fact that they are organized. If you hate the Atheist Alliance for their politics, fair enough, though again they speak for no one but the Atheist Alliance. Just like attacking Muslims for decrees the pope may have made is ridiculous, Catholics on the other hand would be fair (though ultimately people should differentiate between individuals.