-16

What actual purpose does atheism have in our lives? (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 2 months ago by 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/atheism@lemmy.world

44 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Imagine a world without organised religion, where it doesn't affect people's lives, but atheism still exists. What purpose would atheism fill in this scenario?

all 45 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 33 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I don't really understand the question. What purpose does atheism serve now? Who gave it that purpose? Who is the arbiter of such things?

Atheism serves as much purpose in my life as my eye color. It's just a natural part of me and has been as long as I can remember. If I wasn't an atheist, I wouldn't be me.

As far as I can tell, the whole concept of 'purpose' when it comes to humanity as a whole is basically a religious one anyway.

[+] 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com -15 points 2 months ago

If I wasn't an atheist, I wouldn't be me.

Atheism thus must have some identity purpose.

What I don't understand is why it is an identity (apart from opposition to organised religion).

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 19 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Why does it have to have purpose?

It’s a weird question.

The purpose of religion is to control society through communal beliefs. The sense of “purpose” that adherents are made to feel serves to further that control.

Atheism isn’t a religion and it doesn’t have a purpose.

It isn’t part of my “identity” any more than gravity is.

Atheism doesn’t replace religion… and trying to give it purpose is a little weird. In fact, there are a few atheist religions out there.

[+] 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com -8 points 2 months ago

Yes, atheism obviously isn't a religion and I see how it is a weird question. I mean purpose not in a way that resembles devotion or submission, but as an explanation for its existence.

AFAIK, gravity was understood differently before Newtonian physics, right? Different concepts of gravity serve a purpose.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago

Atheism is the lack of a belief. The lack of believing in gods serves as much purpose as the lack of believing in goblins.

What purpose does the lack of believing in goblins serve?

[-] 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 2 months ago

What purpose does the lack of believing in goblins serve?

Well, personally, my lack of believing in goblins serves my sense of reality. I am extremely sure goblins are made up, so my lack of belief serves my understanding of consistency and coherence of the world. Were goblins real, we likely could interact with them, if I understood them correctly.

IIRC, most religions hold that one cannot interact with their deities directly - so even if theism had just a grain of truth, its truth would be so irrelevant and far from people's lives (just another level of hierarchy) that I don't understand how its belief or disbelief affects one's sense of reality.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

That makes no sense. You wouldn't even know goblins existed if someone hadn't told you stories about goblins.

Are you so easily swayed that your outlook on reality would have been altered just knowing about the existence of goblins in stories?

[-] 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 2 months ago

Yes, my sense of reality would be altered if one could just write magical beings into interactable existence.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

Isn’t that what religion is?

I mean, really. You dismiss the existence of goblins because they’re myths, but not of an all-powerful, all-knowing god… which is also just a myth?

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

Not something that I suggested.

You claimed that merely knowing that goblins are a concept would alter your perception of reality. That's ludicrous. I do not believe your perception of reality was altered when you learned that goblins are a concept unless you uncritically believed they existed, in which case, you need to work on your critical thinking skills.

But you seem to be stuck on 'goblins.' So let's change it while still using the same basic metaphor:

The lack of believing in gods serves as much purpose as the lack of believing in snxxzxz.

What purpose does the lack of believing in snxxzxz serve?

[-] 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 2 months ago

snxxzxz or any other gibberish isn't yet associated with meaning. Once some gibberish would get meaning AND become embodied (ie observable existence), yes my sense of reality would be altered. Are you sure this is a critical thinking failure?

Are you saying atheism is a form of disassociation or gibberish-making of theist beliefs? If yes, I would consider that tool a purpose/function of atheism.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

Why do you think the concept of a god automatically has meaning beyond a fiction?

That is all the meaning it has ever held for me.

Not believing in gods is the default. You must be taught about them first and convinced.

[-] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Ummm... So, religion?

[-] Hobbes@startrek.website 1 points 2 months ago

Well, personally, my lack of believing in goblins serves my sense of reality. I am extremely sure goblins are made up, so my lack of belief serves my understanding of consistency and coherence of the world.

You're so close to getting it!

[-] warbond@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago

It feels like you're coming at this from the position of religiosity being the "default" and non-religiosity being abnormal, which I think is a flawed premise.

What I don’t understand is why it is an identity (apart from opposition to organised religion).

It also feels like you think of atheists as being anti-religion, which is also flawed.

Atheism is an identity only insofar as Christianity is an identity. Christianity isn't what a person believes, it's the word we use to describe their beliefs, to give a general idea of their culture. Atheism is just a way to describe the absence of that particular aspect of thought. The labeling isn't important in and of itself, it's just an identifier.

Are you suggesting that being atheist is unnatural? What do you mean by "actual purpose?"

Is this a high thought? It sounds like a high thought.

[+] 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com -6 points 2 months ago

It feels like you’re coming at this from the position of religiosity being the “default” and non-religiosity being abnormal, which I think is a flawed premise.

Yes, that would be a flawed premise, but I hope I am coming from a position of neither being a default for the sake of the discussion.

What I don’t understand is why it is an identity (apart from opposition to organised religion).

It also feels like you think of atheists as being anti-religion, which is also flawed.

Anti-religion is just a subset of atheism; one could frame my question also as what remains in atheism without anti-religion.

Are you suggesting that being atheist is unnatural?

Of course it is unnatural or do you believe apes have strong opinions about theism? Same goes for theism. Naturality is mostly irrelevant for complex sociocultural views, IMO. I find atheism beneficial, though.

Is this a high thought?

I wish.

[-] Brainsploosh@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

Are you suggesting that being atheist is unnatural?

Of course it is unnatural or do you believe apes have strong opinions about theism? Same goes for theism. Naturality is mostly irrelevant for complex sociocultural views, IMO. I find atheism beneficial, though.

I think this puts a point on your confusion with the descriptor.

Do you believe ducks are convinced a god exists? If not, they're atheist.

Are rocks convinced a god exists? I'd argue they aren't sentient and thus not able to - they're atheist.

Atheism doesn't require an act of will, isn't an identity, it only describes one particular thing (which we have a need to describe as religious people get all tizzy about it), just like "blue", "tall" or "dizzy". And to belabour the point, it actually describes the absence of a thing, and thus covers all options but one.

An analogous term for someone not believing in aliens could be analienist, you can be analienist regardless if there are aliens or not (as it only addresses the belief). It doesn't also mean you're anything else (like tall, handsome, or mysterious). It doesn't require you to campaign against aliens, throw rocks at the sky, or go to analienist meetings.

As long as you don't believe in aliens, you're analienist.

[-] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Heh, anal ienist.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

one could frame my question also as what remains in atheism without anti-religion.

A lack of belief in gods. Which is what atheism means. You can be an atheist and pro-religion. My mother is an atheist but still goes to temple every week.

You really need to understand the meaning of the word.

A = lack of

Theism = belief in a god or gods.

That's all it is. A lack of belief in any gods.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago

Why must it?

Also, why do you think atheism is an entire atheist's identity and not just a small part of it? I'm an atheist. I'm also a Trekkie. I'd say Star Trek is a much bigger part of my life than atheism.

[-] Hobbes@startrek.website 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Also a much better source of morals (if you don't think they are innate).

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

I agree 100%. Star Trek helped teach me about diversity and equality and respect for other cultures. Also the concept of talking things out before guns start going off.

[-] jbrains@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I don't consider it an identity, but it is a stable state for me: I do not believe in the existence of gods until further notice. This is what I mean when I say "I am an atheist". It's a shorthand way to express this stable state about me.

Moreover, opposing organized religion is not the primary reason that I don't believe in the existence of gods.

[-] spaceghoti@lemmy.one 2 points 2 months ago

No it doesn't. The only reason I bother calling myself an atheist is because believers keep insisting I have to share their beliefs. If they didn't, I wouldn't need the label.

[-] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

If there were no religions, there would be no atheists. Or everyone would be, but they wouldn't make up a name for it.

It's just a title used to differentiate from Jewish, Christian, Muslim, etc. An atheist is the "None of the above" option.

If some people could breathe underwater, we would identify as air breathers, not because of any purpose that it fills, just so people know we don't breathe underwater.

[-] Landsharkgun@midwest.social 14 points 2 months ago

By living, I am antimortality.

If death didn't exist, what pupose would antimortality have?

Your question is nonsense.

[-] czech@lemm.ee 14 points 2 months ago

Atheism isn't serving a purpose. It's an evidenced-based reality.

Why do you feel it must serve a purpose?

[+] 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com -9 points 2 months ago

Without a purpose/function I don't see how it would still exist.

[-] eldain@feddit.nl 5 points 2 months ago

Because religious people needed a word for the unimaginable absence of their favourite hobby in other people. Non-believer was already used for people who believe differently relative to them, so a different word was made for those who are even worse and defy divinity. It is useful to sum up your stance towards religion for religious folks but indeed carries no meaning in non-religious contexts.

[-] Rhaedas@fedia.io 5 points 2 months ago

What is termed "militant" atheism, where someone argues against religious ideas or actions, wouldn't exist because there wouldn't be anything to argue about. But atheism itself would exist as a default, and already does in reality. No baby is born with a belief in any religion. So the only thing that changes in your hypothetical is the baby never gets indoctrinated with such beliefs.

[-] Steve@startrek.website 3 points 2 months ago

The word probably wouldnt exist in a world where atheism is the default

[-] 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com -5 points 2 months ago

...and I wasn't sure on that and wanted to find out why it wouldn't exist.

[-] hjjanger@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago

The word atheist is just a term for a rejection of a specific proposition. There's no reason why that would logically need a purpose. We find purpose elsewhere.

[-] lvxferre@mander.xyz 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

What's the actual purpose of not believing that pineapples grow on trees? Or not believing that the Moon is made of green cheese? or not believing in any other false statement?

I'm being cheeky to highlight a point: at the core atheism is the belief on a single epistemic statement, "there's no god out there". (Or the lack of belief in the opposite statement. Once you go past the "ackshyually" they're the same deal.)

You don't need a "purpose" for that.

[-] kubica@fedia.io 10 points 2 months ago

Without organized religion if you still don't believe in gods, then you are still atheist. There is no purpose, just how things are.

[-] jbrains@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 months ago

Reminding people to demand evidence for claims.

[-] AlexanderESmith@social.alexanderesmith.com 7 points 2 months ago

What the hell are you talking about? With no religion, there would be no counterpoint. Atheism is just not being theistic.

Your hypothetical is nonsense.

[-] Max_P@lemmy.max-p.me 4 points 2 months ago

Religion gives atheism purpose by opposing religion, for those that even care about religion. I didn't even care about atheism or religion until US religion started affecting my life, because in Québec religion died in the 70s and is nothing more than a cultural artifact, so atheism is the default and therefore don't need to identify as an atheist, you have to identify as a religious weirdo.

Atheism doesn't have a standalone purpose like religion does. Atheism exists purely because religion exists.

[-] Kalkaline@leminal.space 3 points 2 months ago

Atheism A = without theos = god You define a world without a belief in god, so now everyone is an atheist.

[-] Ifera@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

For me, it would keep me from being an oxymoron. I make an active effort to test my knowledge and beliefs, and to update my knowledge when previously held beliefs prove either false or unjustified.

And to hold a belief so significant without any proof or evidence would make me a hypocrite.

[-] spaceghoti@lemmy.one 3 points 2 months ago

None. Atheism isn't a religion or philosophy. It's an answer to one question, and only one: do you believe in gods? The answer is "no."

Where we go from there is up to us.

[-] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Imagine a world without organised religion, where it doesn't affect people's lives, but atheism still exists.

A near perfect utopia where there isn't fighting over dumbass fake shit where humanity works together to better itself because there is no person who believes in a god, and nothing beyond this one life so we actually are much more motivated to make it better?

There is no purpose to atheism. It's simply a lack of a belief in a god. 🤦‍♂️

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

You highly overestimate human nature.

Remember, WWI and WWII and Vietnam and a bunch of other modern wars weren't really fought over religion.

this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2024

-16 points (26.5% liked)

Atheism

3984 readers

343 users here now

Community Guide

Archive Today will help you look at paywalled content the way search engines see it.

Statement of Purpose

This is a support and conversation community for people who don't believe in gods.
Superstition hucksters have no reason to subscribe or post here at all.
If you are looking to debate or proselytize, options will be linked lower in the sidebar.

Acceptable

Honest questions or conversations.
Discussions on parenting or advice.
Struggles, frustrations, coming out.
Atheist memes. We can have fun!
News headlines relevant to atheism.

Unacceptable

Depending on severity, you might be warned before adverse action is taken.

Anything against site rules.
Illegal and/or NSFW material.
Troll posts and comments. There will be no attempt to explain what that means.
Leading questions, agenda pushing, or disingenuous attempts to bait members.
Personal attacks or flaming.

Inadvisable

Self promotion or upvote farming.
Excessive shitposting or off-topic discussion.

Application of warnings or bans will be subject to moderator discretion. Feel free to appeal. If changes to the guidelines are necessary, they will be adjusted.

If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a group that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of any other group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you you will be banned on sight.

Provable means able to provide proof to the moderation, and, if necessary, to the community.

 ~ /c/nostupidquestions

If you want your space listed in this sidebar and it is especially relevant to the atheist or skeptic communities, PM DancingPickle and we'll have a look!

Connect with Atheists

Matrix: #atheism:envs.net

Help and Support Links

Streaming Media

This is mostly YouTube at the moment. Podcasts and similar media - especially on federated platforms - may also feature here.

Orgs, Blogs, Zines

Mainstream

Bibliography

Start here...

...proceed here.

Proselytize Religion

Convince an Atheist

From Reddit

As a community with an interest in providing the best resources to its members, the following wiki links are provided as historical reference until we can establish our own.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world