What is atheism?

[ZNP]

I recently had a lot of pushback to the observation that the atheists on one particular thread were dogmatic. That caused me to think that I had assumed I understood what atheism is without giving it adequate thought. Since there are a lot of atheists on this board and they are quite active in posting I think it would be beneficial to me if they could help me understand what exactly it is to be an atheist.

To help this thread I am including some thoughts and questions I have. However, I do expect that there will be an explanation to each point, that atheists have considered these things and have an answer and would just like to hear the answer. thanks.

My understanding is that to be an atheist you have to agree that

1. there is no God that governs the universe.

That seems to be the standard definition, but it leaves a whole lot that is not clear.

1a. Could a person be an atheist and still believe the soul is eternal?

1b. Could a person be an atheist and still believe that adultery, stealing and murder are sins? In other words can they be an atheist that believes there is no God that governs the universe still believe people will ultimately be judged for the sins they commit?

1c. What about idolatry? Does not believing there is a God that governs the universe also mean that atheists don’t believe in making anything else a God, or elevating anything else to the position of God?


2. I saw a letter to an editor by an atheist titled “It’s OK to be good without God”. Which of course begs the question, how does an atheist define “good”?



Atheists are often portrayed as being anti religion, or anti Christian. I suppose this is a stereotype that does not apply to all just as there are many stereotypes concerning Christians that don’t apply to all. But if you do not believe in a God that governs the universe, don’t believe soul is eternal and don’t believe that there will be a judgement, does that mean that atheists feel

3. “The world is meaningless and they are standing on a rock as it swirls pointlessly through the universe”?

If this is basically true for atheists then why was the theme for the 2019 Secular Student Association “Better together: Creating Meaningful Community”? What does an atheist mean by “creating meaningful community” in a meaningless universe?

4. Secularism argues that there is light and guidance in secular truth based on life and the welfare of life. There are 3 basic tenants:

A. Improvement of life by material means — how do you measure improvement?

b. Science is the available providence of man — doesn’t this mean that instead of believing that there is no God that governs the universe you believe that Science governs the universe?

c. It is good to be good. Why? If there is no judgment, then how can you have the judgement that it is “good to be good”?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I recently had a lot of pushback to the observation that the atheists on one particular thread were dogmatic. That caused me to think that I had assumed I understood what atheism is without giving it adequate thought. Since there are a lot of atheists on this board and they are quite active in posting I think it would be beneficial to me if they could help me understand what exactly it is to be an atheist.

Hello ZNP. Congratulations on trying to learn some new things with an open mind.
I'll just have a go at some of the simpler questions.

My understanding is that to be an atheist you have to agree that
1. there is no God that governs the universe.
That seems to be the standard definition, but it leaves a whole lot that is not clear.

To be an atheist means that you lack any belief in any God or gods. It means a-theism, ie, not being a theist.
Basically, if someone says to you "Do you believe in a God or gods?" and you answer no, you're an atheist.

1a. Could a person be an atheist and still believe the soul is eternal?

Yes, technically they could. But since "the soul" is such an integral part of a number of religions, it would be very unlikely.

1b. Could a person be an atheist and still believe that adultery, stealing and murder are sins? In other words can they be an atheist that believes there is no God that governs the universe still believe people will ultimately be judged for the sins they commit?

Hmmm.
Well, an atheist can certainly believe that adultery, stealing and murder are wrong and immoral, but if we mean sin in a religious context then no, because atheists do not believe there is any god to judge them.

2. I saw a letter to an editor by an atheist titled “It’s OK to be good without God”. Which of course begs the question, how does an atheist define “good”?

A fair question, but rather a large one to go into here.
Let's start off with a simple explanation - by no means a watertight one, but one which might point towards the answer: do we want to rape? Steal? Lie? Try it, and see what happens. You'll probably soon discover that there are unpleasant consequences towards doing so.
Please, no counterarguments at this point, from anyone listening. I'm not saying this is the definitive explanation of morality; just answering ZNP's question. Atheists create their own morality, as part of groups and as individuals.

Atheists are often portrayed as being anti religion, or anti Christian. I suppose this is a stereotype that does not apply to all just as there are many stereotypes concerning Christians that don’t apply to all.

Well, many of the atheists on this forum live in America, which has a great many Christians, and so they are reacting against their whole culture, in a way. Also, many atheists were once Christians and so may feel strong emotions about their former religion. And finally, it should be pointed out that the Bible does call atheists fools, something I have frequently seen Christians on these forums refer to.

 

[Ophiolite]

My understanding is that to be an atheist you have to agree that

1. there is no God that governs the universe.

Correct, but note that there is a spectrum of disbelief. There are atheists such as Dawkins who actively promote disbelief, then there are persons whose disbelief is quite incidental in their lives and who have barely considered the matter.

1a. Could a person be an atheist and still believe the soul is eternal?

Certainly, though the combination of viewpoints would be unusual. Bhuddists?

1b. Could a person be an atheist and still believe that adultery, stealing and murder are sins? In other words can they be an atheist that believes there is no God that governs the universe still believe people will ultimately be judged for the sins they commit?

I speak for myself here, but I don't find the word "sin" useful. Actions may be good, neutral or bad. Bad actions are to be discouraged, avoided and the perpetrators addressed in some appropriate way. Good actions are to encouraged and appropriately rewarded. That's just the logical approach for an intelligent, social species.

It is self evident that many "bad" actions, sins if you insist, do not lead to punishment, though many others do. Much of our politics and culture and religion are attempts to address this problem.

1c. What about idolatry? Does not believing there is a God that governs the universe also mean that atheists don’t believe in making anything else a God, or elevating anything else to the position of God?

This is difficult to answer, since idolatry only has personal meaning if one is a theist. Also, if one elevates anything to the position of universe governing God then I cannot see how they are not then a God. Perhaps you mean something a little different, more subtle. Are you thinking Mathew 6:24?

2. I saw a letter to an editor by an atheist titled “It’s OK to be good without God”. Which of course begs the question, how does an atheist define “good”?

That depends on which atheist you speak to. Take a look at some threads in CF and it is clear that a similar diversity exists within Christianity, or certainly in the minds of Christians.

Cooperation; selflessness; care for the young, the infirm, the old, the weak; honesty; loyalty; open-mindedness; sincerity. It's the usual list, and apart from those notions that relate to a God, there would be no meaningful difference between a Christian's view of good and that of an atheist.

Aside: the fact that this seems to puzzle some Christians is viewed as arrogance by some atheists.

Atheists are often portrayed as being anti religion, or anti Christian. I suppose this is a stereotype that does not apply to all just as there are many stereotypes concerning Christians that don’t apply to all. But if you do not believe in a God that governs the universe, don’t believe soul is eternal and don’t believe that there will be a judgement, does that mean that atheists feel

3. “The world is meaningless and they are standing on a rock as it swirls pointlessly through the universe”?

Many atheists find enough challenges in their day to day life that they have insufficient time to consider the meaning of it all.

My view is this: it is quite remarkable that a few basic constants, a handful of fundamental forces and a smattering of simple particles can lead ever more emerging complexity, producing a species that is - in essence - the universe contemplating itself. So, there is meaning, and that is the meaning we decide upon. Each individual is free to decide what that should be. As a species I think that goal should be to gain a better understanding of the universe that has spawned us.

If this is basically true for atheists then why was the theme for the 2019 Secular Student Association “Better together: Creating Meaningful Community”? What does an atheist mean by “creating meaningful community” in a meaningless universe?

I think I have already answered that above, but if the meaning is not clear, just ask.
(From the viewpoint of some atheists, it may seem far better to "create a meaningful community" through interaction with ones fellows (of all persuasions), dedicated to a meaning they have chosen, than to follow a seemingly imaginary set of rules and meanings conceived within the confines of religion.)

4. Secularism argues that there is light and guidance in secular truth based on life and the welfare of life. There are 3 basic tenants:

A. Improvement of life by material means — how do you measure improvement?

b. Science is the available providence of man — doesn’t this mean that instead of believing that there is no God that governs the universe you believe that Science governs the universe?

c. It is good to be good. Why? If there is no judgment, then how can you have the judgement that it is “good to be good”?

I wouldn't agree your three basic tenants are comprehensive. Where did you source them? Regardless:

A. Do people have enhanced opportunities to "be all they can be?" If so, that's an improvement. How do you measure improvement?

B. Science governs the universe? At the risk of offending you, that is a truly dumb idea. Why would you think that atheists might imagine that to be true? Science is a convenient, very effective means for discovering and confirming things about the universe. It is a tool.

C. We evolved to be good. If our ancestors had not been good, had not been cooperative, had not been committed to the community's goals, had not cared for the weak, had not done all the good things, the species would have failed. Being good is just common sense.

It is clear to me that many Christians (though certainly not all) seem to do good things because they are afraid not to, they are afraid of missing out on eternal life, or worse, being consigned to eternal hell. On the other hand, many atheists do good things because this is the only opportunity we shall ever have to do good and we do not want to miss out on it.

 

[Larniavc]

It is clear to me that many Christians (though certainly not all) seem to do good things because they are afraid not to, they are afraid of missing out on eternal life, or worse, being consigned to eternal hell. On the other hand, many atheists do good things because this is the only opportunity we shall ever have to do good and we do not want to miss out on it.

It is for that reason I find it hard to trust Christians. One can never know if they are doing something because it’s part of their nature or whether it’s because it’s what they think God wants.

It’s much easier to gauge an atheist by their actions than a Christian.

 

[Ophiolite]

It’s much easier to gauge an atheist by their actions than a Christian.

I suppose you could say that at least when an atheist is being dishonest, he's honest about it.

 

[public hermit]

It is for that reason I find it hard to trust Christians. One can never know if they are doing something because it’s part of their nature or whether it’s because it’s what they think God wants.

It’s much easier to gauge an atheist by their actions than a Christian.

I'm curious, why would it matter if the outcome is the same? If you are in need and someone helps you, what difference does motivation make, if the outcome is that you are helped? What we (humans) gauge when it comes to trust is action, not motivation.

You say it affects your ability to trust Christians. How so, if the outcome is consistently good? I can see the argument, from an atheist's point of view, that a Christian's motives, if based on some belief about God's will, are unfounded. But, so long as they are consistent in doing good, for whatever reason, then sufficient reason for trust obtains.

I could make the same argument about atheists, and say I dont trust them because their motives for doing good are not founded in obedience to God. But, the reality is, so long as they are consistent, regardless of motives, I have no good reason to not trust them except some prejudice against those who don't have a certain kind of motive.

Now, if you were to say, "I don't trust Christians who say they believe God wants them to do good, but then don't consistently do so." That would make sense. Hypocrisy is a reason against trust and I would agree with you.

 

[Larniavc]

I could make the same argument about atheists, and say I dont trust them because their motives for doing good are not founded in obedience to God.

It not quite the same. An atheist who does good is doing good because that is their intrinsic nature.

A Christian may be doing good because of their nature or because they fear Hell.

In both cases they may be doing good to blend in and are actually misanthropes but that cancels out in both sides.

The worry I have is similar to the commonly held Christian view that there is nothing to stop atheists doing a murder because they have no moral compass without God. That many Christians seem to think this implies that they think it human nature to go around doing killings unless they believe in God- that in fact they themselves would be going around doing murders if not for the fear of Hell.

So, it’s reasonable to assume that if a Christian stops believing in Hell we have no way to predict, based on previous behaviour whether they will start doing murders.

Does that make sense?

 

[public hermit]

It not quite the same. An atheist who does good is doing good because that is their intrinsic nature.

A Christian may be doing good because of their nature or because they fear Hell.

In both cases they may be doing good to blend in and are actually misanthropes but that cancels out in both sides.

The worry I have is similar to the commonly held Christian view that there is nothing to stop atheists doing a murder because they have no moral compass without God. That many Christians seem to think this implies that they think it human nature to go around doing killings unless they believe in God- that in fact they themselves would be going around doing murders if not for the fear of Hell.

So, it’s reasonable to assume that if a Christian stops believing in Hell we have no way to predict, based on previous behaviour whether they will start doing murders.

Does that make sense?

Not really, it doesn't make sense. If they stopped believing in hell then they would be just like you. You don't believe in hell. Moreover, there are plenty of atheists who used to be Christians, believed in hell, who still act in morally acceptable ways, i.e. didn't become murderers, rapists, etc. to dispel the concern.

I don't disagree that doing good out of fear of punishment, temporal or eternal, is not the best motive. One should do good because it's good, whether atheist or theist. But, if fear of punishment, temporal or eternal, is the prime motivation, then so be it. For the rest of our sake, so be it.

I would say the viewpoint your describing is not very well thought out on the part of those theists who promote it. I would say a more accurate (reasonable)position would be that God has created all of humanity with a moral sense of what is good, so that there is some continuity, regardless of grounding belief structure. For instance, some form of the golden rule is ubiquitous throughout human cultures. Obviously, you will disagree with that assessment. But, we can both agree that people do good who have no fear of hell.

To be fair, might there be some who are restrained from horrendous acts out of fear of hell? Sure, just as there might be some atheists who are restrained from horrendous acts out of fear of temporal punishment. But, to extend that across the board over the whole group in either case is unwarranted.

All that to say, if you're going to try and predict behavior, in search of trustworthiness, the best bet is to go case by case, not group by group, and allow prior behavior to be the guide for future prediction. Motivations are, generally speaking, hidden.

 

[ZNP]

Thanks to InterestedAtheist and Ophiolite, your answers were certainly very helpful.

Sources for post 1 were based on a quick google search, this led to dictionary definitions and wikipedia pages as well as a link to Secular Student Foundation, Secularism, and Humanism.

I did see quite a few references that the gauge for "good" could be understood in the context of what is good for human society.

I found something else particularly interesting but I think it would be better for the thread to quote that directly.

 

[ZNP]

My view is this: it is quite remarkable that a few basic constants, a handful of fundamental forces and a smattering of simple particles can lead ever more emerging complexity, producing a species that is - in essence - the universe contemplating itself. So, there is meaning, and that is the meaning we decide upon. Each individual is free to decide what that should be. As a species I think that goal should be to gain a better understanding of the universe that has spawned us.

The universe in essence contemplating itself.

A. Do people have enhanced opportunities to "be all they can be?" If so, that's an improvement. How do you measure improvement?

To me it is simple, Jesus is the image of the invisible God, the more that we, a corporate man (human society) express that image, that is how we measure improvement. Jesus healed the blind, the more that we as a society can do that, then that is improvement. Jesus healed the lame, the more we can do that, then that is an improvement.

B. Science governs the universe? At the risk of offending you, that is a truly dumb idea. Why would you think that atheists might imagine that to be true? Science is a convenient, very effective means for discovering and confirming things about the universe. It is a tool.

I took this from the internet on a discussion of secularism, might have been on wikipedia. The quote was virtually verbatim, saying that science was the providence of man was definitely a verbatim quote. I also know many who claim that science has become the religion of some.

 

[ZNP]

That depends on which atheist you speak to. Take a look at some threads in CF and it is clear that a similar diversity exists within Christianity, or certainly in the minds of Christians.

Cooperation; selflessness; care for the young, the infirm, the old, the weak; honesty; loyalty; open-mindedness; sincerity. It's the usual list, and apart from those notions that relate to a God, there would be no meaningful difference between a Christian's view of good and that of an atheist.

I thought the NT definition of good is given by Jesus "God is good". So I certainly felt there would be a different definition for an atheist. That is essentially my definition as well, "being conformed to the image of Christ" and "attaining to the outstanding resurrection".

However, your definition seems very similar to James definition of pure religion (which does not include faith) -- visit widows and orphans in their affliction and to be unspotted by the world.

 

[Ophiolite]

@ZNP I want to preface my responses to your two replies to my remarks with these important reminders.
1. Atheists are a far more diverse group than theists, in terms of their beliefs (or non-beliefs), goals, understanding of the meaning of life, morals, etc. This diversity is such that it is probably nonsensical to even think of them as a group.
2. In consequence, nothing stated in this thread by any atheist should be taken as reliably reflecting the views of atheists in toto.

The universe in essence contemplating itself.

Precisely so. And that carries with it responsibilities. Homo sapiens may be the only intelligent, conscious, self-reflecting species to emerge in the entire universe. If we perish as a species the ability of the universe to contemplate itself dies with us. I perceive that as a loss and one of our goals should be to avoid it. That is one of the reasons I become enraged at climate change deniers. It is difficult to see their attitudes as anything other than cavalier, ignorant, self-centred and arrogant.

If we are one of a multitude of intelligent, conscious, self-reflecting species in the universe then we should still work to preserve our species and the biosphere that bore and nurtured us until we can join with those other species towards much greater goals.

And yet, bizarrely, I am told by many Christians that, as an atheist, my life is meaningless, I can hold no meritorious goals and will merely indulge myself in personal pleasures. Perhaps you can see why such messages directed at me are mildly offensive. (I say only mildly offensive, since it's difficult for me to take seriously someone who thinks like that.)

To me it is simple, Jesus is the image of the invisible God, the more that we, a corporate man (human society) express that image, that is how we measure improvement. Jesus healed the blind, the more that we as a society can do that, then that is improvement. Jesus healed the lame, the more we can do that, then that is an improvement.

The goals are the same as I described, only the motivation differs.

I took this from the internet on a discussion of secularism, might have been on wikipedia. The quote was virtually verbatim, saying that science was the providence of man was definitely a verbatim quote.

Are you saying that this was the verbatim quote:
"Science is the available providence of man — doesn’t this mean that instead of believing that there is no God that governs the universe you believe that Science governs the universe?"

I understood that the first part (italicised) was a quote and the second part was your question. Regardless, I don't even know what "the available providence of man" means. Did you mean to type provenance and, if so, what is an 'available' provenance? Moreover, I cannot see how you from something that roughly means "Science is the provenance of man" to "Science governs the universe". The whole thing strikes me as nonsensical.

I also know many who claim that science has become the religion of some.

So what? I know many people who believe in astrology and even some who think beetroot is tasty! There are undoubtedly some who see science as a religion. If any of them are scientists they are not behaving as such.

 

[ZNP]

@ZNP I want to preface my responses to your two replies to my remarks with these important reminders.
1. Atheists are a far more diverse group than theists, in terms of their beliefs (or non-beliefs), goals, understanding of the meaning of life, morals, etc. This diversity is such that it is probably nonsensical to even think of them as a group.
2. In consequence, nothing stated in this thread by any atheist should be taken as reliably reflecting the views of atheists in toto.

I have no way to verify this. I am familiar with an exceedingly wide range of beliefs among theists, but it is difficult to get an Atheist to even respond to a question about "what they believe". Which is why I did not pose my questions like that but "you have to agree that...", etc.

Precisely so. And that carries with it responsibilities. Homo sapiens may be the only intelligent, conscious, self-reflecting species to emerge in the entire universe. If we perish as a species the ability of the universe to contemplate itself dies with us. I perceive that as a loss and one of our goals should be to avoid it. That is one of the reasons I become enraged at climate change deniers. It is difficult to see their attitudes as anything other than cavalier, ignorant, self-centred and arrogant.

I went to Rice University in the 70s/80s and one of my professors was going to Antarctica each year studying "Global Warming" (the name back then). As a result I was easily one of the first 1% of Americans to realize the danger of climate change (a much more accurate term). That includes other geologists. But probably more relevant to your comment I was easily one of the first 1% of Christians to realize this warning concerning the damage from this was in the Bible. I also have to hear these climate change deniers whether they are Christian, scientists, or politicians, etc. But none of that makes me angry.

If we are one of a multitude of intelligent, conscious, self-reflecting species in the universe then we should still work to preserve our species and the biosphere that bore and nurtured us until we can join with those other species towards much greater goals.

That is how I understand the charge that God put us in the garden to "tend it".

And yet, bizarrely, I am told by many Christians that, as an atheist, my life is meaningless, I can hold no meritorious goals and will merely indulge myself in personal pleasures. Perhaps you can see why such messages directed at me are mildly offensive. (I say only mildly offensive, since it's difficult for me to take seriously someone who thinks like that.)

I have been told by atheists that life is meaningless. My reference to a meaningless life was a quote from an atheist, if you simply google “The world is meaningless and they are standing on a rock as it swirls pointlessly through the universe” you will see that it is a quote from an atheist.

The goals are the same as I described, only the motivation differs.

Are you saying that this was the verbatim quote:
"Science is the available providence of man — doesn’t this mean that instead of believing that there is no God that governs the universe you believe that Science governs the universe?"

In that sense secularism had three major principles - it sought to improve life by material means; it argued that science is the available Providence of man; and that it is good to do good. ... In general, secularism aims to ensure that there is no discrimination against anyone on the basis of religion or faith.

That may not be from the same site, but essentially the same. Simply google definition of secularism.

I understood that the first part (italicised) was a quote and the second part was your question. Regardless, I don't even know what "the available providence of man" means. Did you mean to type provenance and, if so, what is an 'available' provenance? Moreover, I cannot see how you from something that roughly means "Science is the provenance of man" to "Science governs the universe". The whole thing strikes me as nonsensical.

Me too, struck me as nonsensical as well.

 

[Ophiolite]

I have no way to verify this. I am familiar with an exceedingly wide range of beliefs among theists, but it is difficult to get an Atheist to even respond to a question about "what they believe". Which is why I did not pose my questions like that but "you have to agree that...", etc.

Well, your own words contradict your imagined inability to verify that atheist views are diverse. You converse with them - you know, just like you are doing here. Now I don't know the circumstances in which you have tried asking atheists, but I'll give you a couple of thoughts that might help you.
1. If someone asks me what I believe I'd find that vastly preferable to the presumptuous and patronising "you have to agree that...". Perhaps you are just asking the wrong question.
2. I wouldn't even entertain answering either of those questions unless I was on good terms with the individual. That would not mean I need have known them for sometime, but they had shown reasonable respect and interest. They would also need to prefaced by an appropriate introduction, such as, "Would you mind me asking you a personal question about your beliefs? If you'd rather not we can just keep on chatting about the football."
3. Perhaps the atheists you have been asking are at the part of the spectrum where they don't have a clear idea of their beliefs or why they hold them, and so your questioning is seen as threatening. Or they have clear ideas, ideas their families dispute and here you are wanting to go over the same ground again. Or..... lots of other reasons. Know your target before you fire off your questions.
4. Or take a long shot and trust my take on it. (Of course I would definitely advise you against taking my advice on anything.)

I went to Rice University in the 70s/80s and one of my professors was going to Antarctica each year studying "Global Warming" (the name back then). As a result I was easily one of the first 1% of Americans to realize the danger of climate change (a much more accurate term). That includes other geologists. But probably more relevant to your comment I was easily one of the first 1% of Christians to realize this warning concerning the damage from this was in the Bible. I also have to hear these climate change deniers whether they are Christian, scientists, or politicians, etc. But none of that makes me angry.

The Half-Price Book Store in Rice Village was the first of the chain I ever visited, but that's neither here nor there.
In regard to your words that I have emboldened, my anger is a lifestyle choice: I wouldn't want a silent smoke alarm.

That is how I understand the charge that God put us in the garden to "tend it".

And here you have an atheist upset at the failure of some Christians ( but certainly not all) to respond properly to that charge.

I have been told by atheists that life is meaningless. My reference to a meaningless life was a quote from an atheist, if you simply google “The world is meaningless and they are standing on a rock as it swirls pointlessly through the universe” you will see that it is a quote from an atheist.

I've seen Christians on this forum declaring that they fear their life is meaningless, but I don't presume from this that Christians believe life is meaningless. You shouldn't presume that atheists think it's meaningless because some of them are in permanent or temporary despair.
This attitude - believing life is meaningless - is independent of atheism and theism and tied wholly to the human condition.

In that sense secularism had three major principles - it sought to improve life by material means; it argued that science is the available Providence of man; and that it is good to do good. ... In general, secularism aims to ensure that there is no discrimination against anyone on the basis of religion or faith.

That may not be from the same site, but essentially the same. Simply google definition of secularism.

It would have been courteous of you to provide the link to the site you had quoted from. (You can figure out the corollary of not doing so.) I still don't understand what Holyoake means by the Providence of Man. What is your understanding of it?

The writer, who is summarising Holyoake's ideas, goes on to say this:
"With time the term evolved and was considered a description of any philosophy which develops its ethics with no reference to religious dogmas and which seeks to promote human art and science. Although the simplest way to explain secularism is as the absence of religion, it is often considered a philosophical system with personal, political, cultural and social implications. Those who support the concept believe that the various doctrines of secularism have been taught by free-thinkers of all ages. Secularism claims to be an extension of free-thought, a philosophical standpoint, according to which opinions should be based on science, logic and reason."

Now that is a superior description of secularism and of the views of the more thoughtful atheists.

Me too, struck me as nonsensical as well.

If you thought it was nonsensical why did you ask me to answer questions about it as if it somehow represented my thinking?

 

[ZNP]

I still don't understand what Holyoake means by the Providence of Man. What is your understanding of it?

at the moment I am trying to keep an open mind because it seems every time I say what I think these things mean people get offended.

If you thought it was nonsensical why did you ask me to answer questions about it as if it somehow represented my thinking?

I simply googled atheist, and from there went to a secular foundation on college campuses, a recent conference they had, and from there to secularism and humanism. My questions were generic, they weren't addressed to you, and I thought I was very clear up front that I didn't know what your thinking (or any other atheist thinking) was and that was the motive in this thread to give you a chance to tell me in a non judgmental, non attacking way that I picked up from my reading (living in a "Christian" country can make an atheist feel like they are being judged or attacked -- at least that is what some say both online and on this thread).

 

[ZNP]

I am seeing the use of science is a common theme among the various sites concerning atheism, secularism and humanism, three isms that are common among those who identify as being an atheist. I have also seen quite a bit concerning human society as a measure, what is good for society is a common goal. It seems this is central to the definition of secularism and humanism.

"Secularism is a belief system that rejects religion, or the belief that religion should not be part of the affairs of the state or part of public education. The principles of separation of church and state and of keeping religion out of the public school system are an example of secularism." yourdicftionary.com

Humanism: an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems. Oxford dictionary

So I have another question, and again I expect there is an answer, so this is simply to help me understand. In science we are very precise in our measurements. There is an interesting history on the standard unit for the kilogram, it has changed repeatedly from a measure of water, to a certain amount of platinum, to a certain amount of iridium, until now it is defined by an even more complicated approach. The reason for this is that we found our previous standards were changing their mass over time. Likewise the standard unit for a meter has changed multiple times as well. The reason is that scientists need standard units so that when an experiment is done using 1 kg of a substance everyone knows exactly what that means. The Chinese scientists don't have their opinion about what a kg is, which is different from the Russian kg, or the US kg. We all have exactly the same understanding of what one kg is and it doesn't matter who or where the the person is.

For me, the standard unit for "good" is God. What is the standard unit for "good" for an atheist?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Theos = Greek word translated as "god".
A = Greek prefix of negation.

Atheos = "no god" or "without [a] god"

The English suffix -ism, through French from Latin -ismus and Greek -isma, modifies the word to indicate an idea, system, or practice. Thus atheism meaning "not believing in [a] god".

Hence early Jews and Christians in antiquity were often accused of αθεϊσμός (atheismos), because they did not recognize and worship the Greek and Roman gods.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ophiolite]

I simply googled atheist, and from there went to a secular foundation on college campuses, a recent conference they had, and from there to secularism and humanism. My questions were generic, they weren't addressed to you, and I thought I was very clear up front that I didn't know what your thinking (or any other atheist thinking) was and that was the motive in this thread to give you a chance to tell me in a non judgmental, non attacking way that I picked up from my reading (living in a "Christian" country can make an atheist feel like they are being judged or attacked -- at least that is what some say both online and on this thread).

Fair enough. However: if you attended Rice in the 70'/80s then you must be very close to 60. I'm puzzled how you could have retained such odd notions about atheists until now. I applaud you for (finally) checking it out.

Now you say you were clear up front that you didn't know what atheist thinking was like. That is not how you came across. Several of the questions in your OP implied you strongly suspected many atheists held certain views. Part of this is down to the ambiguity you created by using phrases or concepts picked up on random sites, without clearly distancing yourself from those phrases and concepts. Adding your own questions into that mash indiscriminately didn't help. Re-read your OP and reflect on my comments.

I'm criticising your approach because its limitations may be part of the reason you found it difficult to get straight answers in the past.

Again, I want to emphasise that all my experience (and it is anecdotal, not scientifically gathered, so you may discount it) suggests that most atheists give very little thought to their atheism. It is equivalent for them to having decided some time ago they don't like visiting fairgrounds. The only time fairgrounds will enter their consciousness is when someone proposes going to one and they recall it doesn't interest them. (Please note this is an analogy, so don't respond with an "But fairgrounds actually exist". )

 

[ZNP]

Theos = Greek word translated as "god".
A = Greek prefix of negation.

Atheos = "no god" or "without [a] god"

The English suffix -ism, through French from Latin -ismus and Greek -isma, modifies the word to indicate an idea, system, or practice. Thus atheism meaning "not believing in [a] god".

Hence early Jews and Christians in antiquity were often accused of αθεϊσμός (atheismos), because they did not recognize and worship the Greek and Roman gods.

-CryptoLutheran

Which is why my first post said I understood atheism to mean the person agrees that there is no God. But that still leaves a very wide range. There are atheist organizations that talk about "being good without God". Which is why my previous post asked how an atheist defines good, but more importantly is there a single definition or does every single atheist have their own definition, an idea that could be inferred from or even concluded from post #4. However, that seems very unscientific to me and many atheists appear to embrace their approach to these questions as scientific.

 

[ZNP]

Fair enough. However: if you attended Rice in the 70'/80s then you must be very close to 60. I'm puzzled how you could have retained such odd notions about atheists until now. I applaud you for (finally) checking it out.

And I applaud you for answering these questions and helping me out. I guess, like the atheists who don't consider this matter until someone proposes talking about it to them, that also is how I felt about it. I understood "Atheism" to be "not theism" and left it at that. But on this forum many of those responding are atheists, so I realized my simplistic understanding was not helpful. I needed a better understanding.