- Joe Provenzano
- Jefferson, WI
- United States
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Would atheists benefit from a community? Are they maximizing such benefits?
Yes!
But, I don't believe they would organize 'just one way' - (theists have not), they would still benefit from organization around core concepts. Every moment as unorganized individuals, extends a sub-optimized, limited approach to progress/evolution. Atheists need communities - maybe more than other groups since the current lack of community weakens both individual atheists and the communities in which they live.
Their bibles? The dictionaries of science, ethics and law.
Atheism 2.0 makes good points about what could be gained. I want the benefits communities bring but, there are only religious options within a 25-mile radius of me. I need a 50-mile radius, to encounter an open minded community (Unitarian Universalist) that I can participate in. This is not because I live in the woods... there are close to a million people in that circle. To the degree that I want to participate (engage with like-minded people, celebrate a wedding, funeral or special occasion, host a meaningful discussion, etc.) as a community member, having a single, distant, option is unacceptable.
Such lack of organization is a clear weakness and stunts potential. We can learn from ANY communities... our lack of organization is so apparent. (as Atheist 2.0 discusses)
We need to find our 'Martin Luther', our 'Gandhi", our spark. On one hand, I'm optimistic... but on the other, I fear that I was born to soon. We have not found such fighters because the injustice that occurs (to isolated atheists) is largely invisible and escapes notice relative to the other injustices forced upon groups by the very same powers (politicians, community leaders and church leaders of the status quo).
We did have our leaders (Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, etc...) but, the first priority was the political structures and establishments - we must continue the movement. They gifted us separation of church and state. They would debate and advance the good points of Atheist 2.0. Community 2.0? Atheists need to unite!
E G 10+
Gabo Moreno 100+
Anyway, rants appart, I think skeptics clubs are a better gathering centre. At least I don't think they would suggest that kind of crap without having most attendants saying "what does that crap accomplish?"
(I think you would guess what I think of Alain's proposals.)
Joe Provenzano
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Also suggest teaching about religion from a secular viewpoint would be useful.
Gabo Moreno 100+
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Scott Patterson
Yes the potential is there, but so are some very tough problems to solve with the atheist population as you can see from the threads above. Atheists are generally independent, skeptical and the diversity of views outside of those with a religious context can be very divergent. Example..some atheists are liberal, but some are conservative and/or libertarian. It is tough to bring these individuals together to agree on anything much less avoid conflicts. The one thing that has been tried to bring them together is anti-religion. See the problem? Being anti-religion is not productive to society. Being non-productive or even destructive to society is not viewed favorably within the community you belong. That is why atheists rank at the bottom for trust in most communities. Agnostics fare no better.
Really it comes down to this….if you don’t believe in a God and what the world’s religions are selling then you have come to the very basic conclusion that all you have is one life to live (dumb soap opera ruined a perfectly good organization name). What can you sell an atheist? Time! Time doing what you like to do and spending it with people you like to spend it with. Yes, those are the limited number of seconds you have left passing by reading a dumb post from me.
Scott Patterson
Now the tricky part I haven’t quite figured out, governing policies of this theoretical no religion community. How do you keep religious influence out of this theoretical no religion community? Guess you would start with Rule number 1. If it can’t be proven by scientific principles then it has no place in community discussion. How do you gain membership into a no religion community that pays to be a member? Rule Number 2 You can be a member but to earn paying shares you have to either invest money or invest time. What is the money invested in? I am leaning toward the members in good standing. Scientists with promising research. Inventors with promising ideas.
Joe Provenzano
I agree such groups need incentives. However, incentive is naturally built in and the incentives are intrinsic - the best kind. (See Dan Pink TED talk). This is because it's human to need community.
Also - think secular community more so than Atheist. My intent in using that word was to say 'secular people' and fill the productivity gap I see in that group of people. Religious people are invited but the group is about humanist not religious aims.
Even if all such a group accomplished was meaningful discussion friendships shared it would add value. However, I'm confident that much, much more would result in improved community opportunities for secular citizens.
I also agree with your idea of a co-op and earning dividends. Depending on individual group setup and objectives, there are likely to be costs incurred for comfort sake, bills to pay, etc.
>governing policies...how to keep religious influence out...
I think the unitarian universalists have done a good job with this. I'm sure some communities are more and some less 'spiritual' than others, but that's just people. Going to the 'herding cats' analogy is good here - not sure you need to do it. Focus all outcomes of the group on secular principles and objectives and people can talk however they want (from my perspective). If we have an objective to clean the parks I guess I don't care what's going on between the ears of each helper... I just care that the parks are clean. I think this takes care of itself by holding to secular principles and discussion within any formal agenda of the community. Your rules probably take care of this as well. We are probably on the same page if I amend your 'proven' statement to include theories that are being debated or presented in a scientific manner.
Scott Patterson
I agree meaningful discussion and friendships would be value add but I think positive action would go a long way toward cementing ties within the greater community along with members of the secular organization. I think a secular organization could be highly effective if it focused on reality and solving problems facing their communities and the earth in general. For these non-religious communities to create positive results it will require more time from those that truly get joy out of doing good in the their local communities and I think they should be rewarded for that work. I also believe any secular organization should be value add to its' members.
David Hamilton 50+
David Grammer
Robert Ezell
However, I completely disagree that bashing religion isn't entertaining.
David Grammer
Lyle S Henretty
Chris Waggoner
There are no such dictionaries. What's right, what's lawful, and what's true are matters of dispute.
> Atheists need to unite!
Would you get along with someone just because they were atheist? Why not just unite with a group of people with whom you share an interest? Some of them might be atheists.
Zdenek Smith 100+
Can "what's right" be established with a some degree of certainty? The same as what science tells us about the Universe?
Chris Waggoner
Zdenek Smith 100+
That does not mean that everything is set in stone. Rather scientific knowledge is evolving into every more accurate reflection of what we observe.
I think the same is valid for morality and ethics. There exist basic principles that we can conclude from human basic needs?
Chris Waggoner
Then, morality & ethics have been in dispute for thousands of years. I don't even know what progress would mean in ethics & morality since one can't measure success.
Zdenek Smith 100+
I think one of the greatest success so far in terms of ethics is establishment of universal declaration of human rights where almost all countries agreed on basic principles:
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
In terms of practical application you can see people in countries in Middle East and elsewhere taking down despotic regime to replace it with democracies in order to be able to improve basic human rights such as freedom of speech.
cheers
Chris Waggoner
That is quite different to continuous progress.
> udhr
They're not actually universally agreed.
Zdenek Smith 100+
"Universal Values
The core principles of human rights first set out in the UDHR, such as universality, interdependence and indivisibility, equality and non-discrimination, and that human rights simultaneously entail both rights and obligations from duty bearers and rights owners, have been reiterated in numerous international human rights conventions, declarations, and resolutions. Today, all United Nations member States have ratified at least one of the nine core international human rights treaties, and 80 percent have ratified four or more, giving concrete expression to the universality of the UDHR and international human rights."
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/hr_law.shtml
Joe Provenzano
I don't think success is that hard to measure either... we could start by just watching the reduction in all the easier to measure violations...
Chris Waggoner
> UDHR
Just because those who drafted it said the values are universal, does not make them universal.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
"Rights" are man made concepts.
Suggest none is absolute. Often they must be balanced against each other.
Having said that, the UNDHR look pretty good to me and a lot of others.
If we dropped religious pronouncements that claim absolute moral positions and focused on what promoted the human condition, human happiness it might be a good start. I suggest most would agree with the golden rule.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Surely you'd admit we know more about the universe than our ancestors 100,000 year ago, or 10,000 year ago, or a thousand years ago.
Suggest many high graduate today (those who actually studied) know more about life and the universe from a scientific perspective than anyone alive 2,000 years ago.
Zdenek Smith 100+
"Just because those who drafted it said the values are universal, does not make them universal."
Yes just writing them down does not make it universal. What makes it universal is the fact that most nations signed that document. Further:
"Through ratification of international human rights treaties, Governments undertake to put into place domestic measures and legislation compatible with their treaty obligations and duties. The domestic legal system, therefore, provides the principal legal protection of human rights guaranteed under international law. Where domestic legal proceedings fail to address human rights abuses, mechanisms and procedures for individual and group complaints are available at the regional and international levels to help ensure that international human rights standards are indeed respected, implemented, and enforced at the local level."
GM, basic human rights are based on what every human needs are. While "right" might be a man made concept, it has a very important role in a modern society and humankind progress?
Otherwise I agree that focusing on human happiness is a good start. Further enable every human to have ability to develop to their full potential is the ultimate goal I think.
Chris Waggoner
I think the TED audience (myself included) is likely to take claims of scientific progress at face value, or worse to talk about a theoretical model of scientific progress in broad terms rather than looking at the specific facts.
However there are reasons to doubt scientific claims that can be observed even by people who just read the newspaper and don't actively take part in sceptically examining results. I'm referring to the economics of scientific research.
Zdenek, sometimes models get worse before they get better. One example is European maps of inland Africa: http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/dishpan.html.
It's indisputable that 2.5 centuries after discovering the microscope, the conventional wisdom on disease and biology is much more accurate. But there are many instances on a shorter time-scale of false results being widely believed true, or of true results being widely believed false. For example there were several instances of decades-long fraud perpetrated by prominet scientists which recently received international attention.
The online journal PlosComp Biology would not exist were it true that science makes (forward) progress daily.
Just to be clear: I am not disputing that "we" know more today than "they" did 2,000 or 200 years ago. Only arguing that scientific progress is not monotonic.
Zdenek Smith 100+
Efforts are being made to make data from scientific observations publicly available and the process of selecting scientific papers for publishing in scientific journal more transparent and fair. This will further improve scientific process.
Yes if you pick a particular theory or scientist you can see a problem but overall I see progress, in some fields it is gradual and in others rapid, toward better understanding. Of course we might never be sure one hundred percent about anything =)
In terms of early maps of Africa, the article explains that early maps were based on accounts of explorers rather than scientists. Gradually scientific methods of measurements and observations were introduced which lead to accurate maps.
cheers
Chris Waggoner
Before the maps of Africa got better, they got worse. So cartography's progress was non-monotonic.
Zdenek Smith 100+
Unfortunately some professors and scientists are not good teachers and that is perhaps where your friend finds frustration with science?
I find it rather fascinating to hear about technological singularity where, according to this theory, our technology (and science behind it) will evolve in ever increasing speed, resulting in machines taking over their evolution (science?) from us (unless we merge our bodies with technology to keep up).
Good discussion. take care
Joe Provenzano
Robert Ezell
As Ryan Bennet pointed out, Atheists are humans, and humans benefit from communities. Good thing too. I have yet to meet a single atheist, or theist for that matter, who is not part of a community.
I'd also like to say that Orlando Hawkins post was spot on. We can discuss art, science, philosophy, how to live a good life, and who our favorite sports team is regardless of whether one believes some god or gods actually exist or not.
Joe Provenzano
Margaret Young
Comment deleted
Joe Provenzano
timber maniac 20+
Ryan Bennett
To which the answer would be your same 'YES!'
It seems self-evident that we humans all need and benefit from community. This is probably the reason we've come up with so many religions over the years.
And we atheists, despite our flat non-belief in the supernatural, still need community. Which is why we find ourselves now contemplating forming a religion of our own.
Chris Anderson asked a very good question in Atheism 2.0 about the need to be part of something greater than oneself. Alain De Botton, despite having just delivered an excellent sermon, gave what I consider to be the typical cop-out atheist answer. And I've given it more times than I can count, so there...
Being part of the hugeness of the universe is inspiring and numinous to the right sort of person yes, but I think the real meat of the issue lies elsewhere. It is not enough to be a part of something greater than the individual, one must feel that he or she is a contributing part of such greatness, whatever it may be. And so the standard secular answer fails to fulfill this need, for it's hard to feel like we actually contribute anything substantial to the greatness of the Cosmos itself. By contrast, devotion to pleasing the creator(s) of everything feels both within our reach and important.
So what can we become a part of, what can we devote ourselves to, that is real, improvable, and worthwhile? Ultimately we all must decide for ourselves (such is the problem with lacking an infallible deity), but I'm currently leaning towards "Each Other."
Joe Provenzano
I do feel like that. It's like "duh" of course we need community! I just too often see the focus on God v Not... and that doesn't leave me feeling like I'm contributing. I also agree that we will find it in service (if I can correctly go there) and especially service towards 'each other'.
Orlando Hawkins 20+
In spite of this, I do not think the gathering of atheist is going to really do any justice. As I have stated in a previous thread, a post like this gives the impression that atheism is a worldview, doctrine or a system of belief and none of these are true. Atheism is simply the non-belief of god(s) and as Sam Harris puts it "the destruction of bad ideas". .Now I am not saying that we need to get our morals, politics or anything from scripture our or intuitive feelings when we sit in prayer. What I am saying is that everyone should have the opportunity to contribute something to the world as long as its reasonable, makes an impact and serves a suitable purpose.
Also art, science, philosophy, etc can all be discussed rather or not one is atheist.
A more secular approach would perhaps be more beneficial being that its wholistic as opposed to just mentioning one particular group. (although Alain de Botton video did not speak about exclusion, this post would give off that impression).
Just some food for thought.
Joe Provenzano
Chris Vriesema-Magnuson
It seems that maybe you want the recognition that aetheists do good deeds as well. We do, but as we don't commit these acts of community and compassion under the same banner the entire group doesn't get the credit. Instead volunteers, donors, and other bland descriptors that have nothing to do with religion get attention and aetheists as a group look soulless compared to theists of identifiable groups.
My question is do aetheists really need to be a group? Or can our energy be just as well put to use as members of other communities? We all need support and would love acceptance of our views, but is that necessary for the betterment of us all?
Joe Provenzano
I'm not saying there are no communities to join - there just are not enough that are fully secular at their core. There is so much wasted effort involved. I'll also admit there are many examples, if I look far enough or travel far enough, yes - just not nearly enough in comparison to religious or special interest groups. I can't throw a stick without hitting a church or some guy on their way to Lion's club... Again, not saying those groups are bad. My point has been that they are less efficient at getting what I believe the majority of non-theists are after (and they are not 'after' being atheist - they have bigger service goals than that) when it comes to community.
The core of the generally available groups have motives and goals that slow progress and ultimately sub-optimize what I would be after. They have goals after all that are partly the same but largely different. An analogy to the 'why not just do good within the groups available to you' would be like my American forefathers saying 'why don't we just keep the King in charge and we'll work within any opportunities that happen to come our way'. That's the type of sub-optimization I would hope to avoid.
That is why these secular groups are needed.- for productivity - for making optimal use of invested resources, money, and time?
Sanket Gupta