Support NeoGAF

[Sutton Dagger]

Do people really go around self identifying as Atheists?
It seems bizarre to me that the someone would and then get to the point that they go around harassing other people about their beliefs when that choice affects you and only you?

If you turn your back on the great spaghetti lord and you go to pasta hell, thats your problem and no-one else's?
If you believe in spaghetti lord and he exists, you get into pasta heaven and that effects you and only you surely?

Cant see why people waste their time talking down to other people for such strange reasons.

I get the gist of what you're saying but that isn't true. Beliefs inform our actions, and when those actions involve instating/changing laws based on those unsubstantiated beliefs, then we are all affected by said beliefs.

 

[iapetus]

I remember reading Mircea Eliade about rituals, and according to him the only goal of religious ritual is "the ability to return to the mythical age, to become contemporary with the events described in one's myth".

This makes no sense if there is no myth to return to.

It also, unfortunately, sounds like garbage.

 

[Agnostic]

Do people really go around self identifying as Atheists?
It seems bizarre to me that the someone would and then get to the point that they go around harassing other people about their beliefs when that choice affects you and only you?

If you turn your back on the great spaghetti lord and you go to pasta hell, thats your problem and no-one else's?
If you believe in spaghetti lord and he exists, you get into pasta heaven and that effects you and only you surely?

Cant see why people waste their time talking down to other people for such strange reasons.

Public policy is proposed and sometimes enacted because of imaginary gods. You better believe I'm not going to stay silent.

-beaten

 

[Screaming Meat]

That may be, but I wonder how narrowly you're defining "ritual" here.

The bunny rabbit ritual I was taught to learn to how to tie my shoelaces was quite an effective teaching tool, for instance. Mr. Rogers had rituals in a similar vein, some intended to help children deal with difficult situations at home or the like.

I think this is where we're missing each other. "The bunny rabbit ritual" is, for me at least, a fast and loose use of the word; what I would call a process or a procedure. A ritual, to me, has a lot more sombre, traditional, strictly non-educational (outside of understanding a particular religion) connotations.

Music etc. are magnificent teaching tools. For instance, the colours of the Rainbow ("Red and yellow and pink and green. Purple and orange and blue") are much easier to remember with a tune attached. You don't even have to remember the order, just the tune. Same with the months of the year. These things stay with you for life.

You were asking to what end one would make humanist rituals.

Fair enough.

 

[patapuf]

Do people really go around self identifying as Atheists?
It seems bizarre to me that the someone would and then get to the point that they go around harassing other people about their beliefs when that choice affects you and only you?

If you turn your back on the great spaghetti lord and you go to pasta hell, thats your problem and no-one else's?
If you believe in spaghetti lord and he exists, you get into pasta heaven and that effects you and only you surely?

Cant see why people waste their time talking down to other people for such strange reasons.

The atheists i know don't parade their atheism around. It only comes up when talking about ones faith.

As for the reason some atheists are "militant". They believe religion is inherently harmful to society. Which is why they fight it. It's obviously not true (and futile) but extremists of any kind are unable to think in shades of grey.

Also, religion does affect me, it affects everyone when policies are established because of religious reasons.

 

[Chuckie]

Atheism isn't a "practice". It's the polar opposite of someone religious--who claims to know there's a God. Atheists are in the same boat claiming they know a God doesn't exist. I don't think you should incorporate any kind of rituals--especially since this is a belief and not a practice. If you want to practice rituals, sounds like you need some kind of religion. Pick a tame one that doesn't condone violence.

Only the gnostic ones claim they know there is or isn't a god.

 

[kurisu_1974]

It also, unfortunately, sounds like garbage.

OK so what is the original goal of rituals then if Eliade is so wrong?

I believe you'd more correctly refer to that as an apathetic agnostic atheist.

Edit: or indeed, apatheism.

The article you quoted even makes a distinction between apatheism (pragmatic atheism) and pragmatic agnosticism.

I guess they have their definitions mixed up the same way I have.

 

[Nameless]

It's gnostic atheists who don't realise this that give atheism a bad name.

Disagreed with this last part of an otherwise spot on post. Atheism has a bad name in large part because it's continually framed, by theists, as the assertion that God/gods doesn't exists. This shifts the burden of proof, giving theists an easier target to argue with, and instantly imbues atheism with the many of same weaknesses inherent to Faith.

There's also the problem with the definition of God, more the specifally how the word literally has thousands of meanings. So while I may come off as a Gnostic atheist in response to the existence of Zeus or Jesus, that says nothing of my broader position, nor my position on less ridiculous god claims. Spinoza's God for example

 

[iapetus]

OK so what is the original goal of rituals then if Eliade is so wrong?

There are many, many answers to that question. The correct one is probably that we don't know, or that it's a combination of a lot of these things. To assume that one answer is right and others are not, and draw conclusions based on that seems a bit on the ridiculous side.

 

[Johnlenham]

Public policy is proposed and sometimes enacted because of imaginary gods. You better believe I'm not going to stay silent.

-beaten

Do you have some examples?
I cant see how being hostile and condescending to people will win them over to your side?

 

[RionaaM]

Atheists need not be emotionally rooted in their practice. After all, it's not a practice, just a lack of belief in any kind of deity.

So I don't have any suggestion regarding the question in the OP, because I don't think there should be any rituals. Atheism is not a religion.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Atheists already have rituals. They spend all day on the internet arguing with others.

 

[bengraven]

I'm an atheist...it's not a practice. I don't believe. It is as simple as that. It's not a religion ffs.

.

 

[CrudeDiatribe]

Are you sure you're a gnostic atheist though? You used the word belief (strongly believe) but do you claim to know that this belief is true? This position would also place the burden of proof on you.

Depends on the discussion on what I claim to 'know'. Casually, yes. In any sort of rigorous discussion I'm more likely to retreat to weak atheism ("I don't believe in gods as there's no evidence."), since my philosophical studies are totally not up to snuff, and as you say the burden of proof is on me. But if you ask what I'd bet on? I'd bet that all the various and sundry gods don't exist.

Back to the burden of proof, though: so what? The burden of proof is also on anyone who claims their particular god exists. People aren't agnostic about the tiny imperceptible dragon in my garage or Russell's teapot, why be agnostic about god(s), aside from cultural heritage?

 

[Purkake4]

Posting snarky image macros on r/atheism isn't ritualistic enough?

 

[shadowsdarknes]

/r/Atheism

Maybe at one point it was, but this day in age, there are as many crazies in Atheism as there are in any other religion.

So they are just crazy people.

Yes, crazy people are crazy no matter what you categorize them as.
But atheism is a lack of belief, it is not supposed to be ritualistic.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

OK so what is the original goal of rituals then if Eliade is so wrong?



The article you quoted even makes a distinction between apatheism (pragmatic atheism) and pragmatic agnosticism.

I guess they have their definitions mixed up the same way I have.

Did you check out the link I posted?

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheist_vs._agnostic

Thoughts?

 

[Sourcerer]

It's a concert sort of like a large ritual?

A crowd of believers show up for 1 - 2 hours and worship a god/gods?

Kind of....

 

[iapetus]

Disagreed with this last part of an otherwise spot on post. Atheism has a bad name in large part because it's continually framed, by theists, as the assertion that God/gods doesn't exists. This shifts the burden of proof, giving theists an easier target to argue with, and instantly imbues atheism with the many of same weaknesses inherent to Faith.

No gnostic atheists would solve the problem, because this wouldn't be a valid framing of atheism. As it is, the way that theists frame it is as a strong/gnostic form of atheism.

And it's framed in that way by a large number of atheists too. There are plenty of people who will assert that gods don't exist. And then deny any burden of proof. It doesn't just imbue atheism with many of the same weaknesses inherent to faith, it makes atheism a form of faith itself, which is kind of defeating the point as far as I'm concerned.

So yes, disingenuous theists can be part of the problem here, but the gnostic atheists open the door for them.

There's also the problem with the definition of God, more the specifally how the word literally has thousands of meanings. So while I may come off as a Gnostic atheist in response to the existence of Zeus or Jesus, that says nothing of my broader position, nor my position on less ridiculous god claims. Spinoza's God for example

You can define a god that doesn't exist even for the most fervent of believers easily enough. When I criticise gnostic atheists I'm normally talking about those talking about non-disprovable deities.

 

[kurisu_1974]

There are many, many answers to that question. The correct one is probably that we don't know, or that it's a combination of a lot of these things. To assume that one answer is right and others are not, and draw conclusions based on that seems a bit on the ridiculous side.

I never said it is the only answer, but to disregard it as bullshit is a bit short sided too, I suggest checking his book out The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion

 

[Jackpot]

OP is a religious man secretly trying to destroy atheism from the inside.

 

[Mario]

The article you quoted even makes a distinction between apatheism (pragmatic atheism) and pragmatic agnosticism.

I guess they have their definitions mixed up the same way I have.

The distinction they make pragmatic atheism relates to belief while pragmatic agnosticism relates to a position on knowledge as multiple people have already told you, and they don't define them as mutually exclusive positions.

Give it up. You are wrong. Read the information you have been given properly.

 

[Vicetrailia]

Humans created God. It's not necessary for life itself, so rather it's a life-choice like so many other things are. I'm an Atheist who doesn't think about god. No religion, not desired community, no nothing.

 

[Screaming Meat]

You can define a god that doesn't exist even for the most fervent of believers easily enough. When I criticise gnostic atheists I'm normally talking about those talking about non-disprovable deities.

Could you elaborate on this? I don't quite get it.

 

[iapetus]

Back to the burden of proof, though: so what? The burden of proof is also on anyone who claims their particular god exists.

So don't make claims you can't support unless you're willing to accept and admit that you're taking a faith-based stance? Of course the burden of proof is also on anyone who claims their particular god exists. The thing a lot of people miss is that it can be on both sides at once.

People aren't agnostic about the tiny imperceptible dragon in my garage or Russell's teapot, why be agnostic about god(s), aside from cultural heritage?

If they're being purely rational, they probably are. Agnosticism says we don't or cannot know whether something exists. So if you define something in terms that inherently mean we can't know whether something exists, the only rational response to it is agnosticism.

 

[kurisu_1974]

Did you check out the link I posted?

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheist_vs._agnostic

Thoughts?

Yes, and I have a problem with every use of the word atheist in connection with belief in that entire article... and

Gnostic atheist believes that no god exists and claims to know that this belief is true

makes ZERO sense to me, sorry. Atheists claiming to believe something, even that something does not exist... agnostic atheism makes sense to me, as does agnostic theism, but I refuse to accept gnostic atheism as a valid school of thought.

This is where I'm coming from by the way:

Ignosticism is the view that a coherent definition of a deity must be put forward before the question of the existence of a deity can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition is not coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the existence of a deity is meaningless or empirically untestable

 

[Roland1979]

Rituals can also be a form of brainwash. It can be the conditioning of the mind. So i think i'll pass. Like praying: do it every day, maybe multiple times a day; that's conditioning. Not saying there isn't a God they ray to (even though i don't believe there is), just that it is conditioning. Praising a flag by the way is as well, which can partly explain the American patriotism, which (patriotism) is stimulated by media and government. That ritual is quite strange in our eyes, but i'm sure we (the Dutch) have our own strange ways.

 

[Batigol]

Someone told me atheism is a belief once. He was pretty unhinged though, tbf.

It's not anything though, right? It just is

 

[Mario]

makes ZERO sense to me, sorry. Atheists claiming to believe something, even that something does not exist... agnostic atheism makes sense to me, as does agnostic theism, but I refuse to accept gnostic atheism as a valid school of thought.

Whether or not you accept gnostic atheism as valid or not doesn't mean that people can't hold that position.

Agnostic atheist -> "I don't believe gods exist but I don't know for sure"
Gnostic atheist -> "I don't believe gods exist and I know that for sure"

Serious question: is English your first language?

Someone told me atheism is a belief once. He was pretty unhinged though, tbf.

It's not anything though, right? It just is

Strictly speaking, atheism is the rejection of the assertion that gods exists, not the positive assertion that gods do not exist. In practical terms atheism is a "lack of belief in god or gods".

 

[zoukka]

It's not anything though, right? It just is

I'm afraid many atheists prove you wrong. Unless you think they are not "proper" atheists. That's just human nature for you.

try zen teachings for "being nothing".

 

[kurisu_1974]

No it's not... didn't realize my English was that bad sorry. And we use the same words and definitions for most terms used here.

It's not because I don't understand that I don't agree even if you like to think that.

I guess i'm out.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

Depends on the discussion on what I claim to 'know'. Casually, yes. In any sort of rigorous discussion I'm more likely to retreat to weak atheism ("I don't believe in gods as there's no evidence."), since my philosophical studies are totally not up to snuff, and as you say the burden of proof is on me. But if you ask what I'd bet on? I'd bet that all the various and sundry gods don't exist.

Back to the burden of proof, though: so what? The burden of proof is also on anyone who claims their particular god exists. People aren't agnostic about the tiny imperceptible dragon in my garage or Russell's teapot, why be agnostic about god(s), aside from cultural heritage?

You are talking about a practical application of knowledge, you 'know' God(s) don't exist in the same way that you would say you 'know' fairies don't exist, right? I could very well be considered a gnostic atheist in relation to particular Gods, for instance gods that can't logically exist (talking about the logical absolutes), but in every other sense I'm an agnostic atheist. In the strictest sense I would be an agnostic about that tiny imperceptible dragon, though in a colloquial conversion and not a logical argument I might also claim to 'know' it doesn't exist. So I see what you're saying but we must also be cognisant of epistemological issues.

 

[Mario]

No it's not... didn't realize my English was that bad sorry. And we use the same words and definitions for most terms used here.

I suspected that was the case. I think your use and understanding of the terms "knowledge" and "belief" is perhaps more blurred than it should be and is causing the confusion for you.

 

[iapetus]

I never said it is the only answer, but to disregard it as bullshit is a bit short sided too

But he does, according to you.

according to him the only goal of religious ritual is

And if we accept that there are other goals, the rest of your comment on it makes no sense.

 

[Skinpop]

Any suggestions?

I experienced the same while living japan. They have lots of rituals/traditions as well as matsuris(festivals) that give you these strong spiritual/emotional experiences but almost no one is really religious or practice religion beyond these rituals.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

Yes, and I have a problem with every use of the word atheist in connection with belief in that entire article... and



makes ZERO sense to me, sorry. Atheists claiming to believe something, even that something does not exist... agnostic atheism makes sense to me, as does agnostic theism, but I refuse to accept gnostic atheism as a valid school of thought.

This is where I'm coming from by the way:

Yet it makes complete sense to many people who are using the terms correctly. I don't know what else to say when you write that you 'refuse to accept' these terms as described?

 

[cutmeamango]

These threads are always a blast.

 

[LCfiner]

As an atheist, I just have one ritual. I watch Carl Sagan's COSMOS once a year to feel good about human discovery and the complexity of life and the universe.

 

[Cizeta-Moroder]

There are atheist religions such as Buddhism. Atheism in itself is not a belief, more like a default state.
Religions are basically obsolete science. Science constantly tries to improve itself. If I chose to ignore the evidence behind these scientific improvements and stuck with old science, I'd become religious about it and my acts would become rituals.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Rephrase the question as "How to bring rituals to atheists who are in need of rituals (most likely because they grew up in a ritual-heavy household)?" and we'll be able to circumvent the debate of how atheism isn't a collective as such that share the same ideals - which is true, all atheist means is that one does not believe in God

As for the answer to your question, I think the best thing might be to just co-opt the rituals of religious folks, especially if your goal is to help those that have recently left the religion but are still missing the ritual element of it. To a degree, this is already happening, like with how Christmas is celebrated as a non-religious tradition by those who aren't religious, and I don't see why a similar co-opting of traditions couldn't be done to more exclusively christian traditions like mass and such.

A non-religious mass would just be a community gathering on a saturday or sunday, where people have a good time singing songs, listening to inspirational speeches, and perhaps having a good meal.

 

[BruiserBear]

Rituals for atheists?

lol

 

[CrudeDiatribe]

So don't make claims you can't support unless you're willing to accept and admit that you're taking a faith-based stance? [...] The thing a lot of people miss is that it can be on both sides at once.

I agree (to both). My original post in this off-topic stream was merely to point out that one could be an atheist and have a faith-based opinion.

Agnosticism says we don't or cannot know whether something exists. So if you define something in terms that inherently mean we can't know whether something exists, the only rational response to it is agnosticism.

That would be the only rational response, but in practice it only gets applied to divinity.

You are talking about a practical application of knowledge, you 'know' God(s) don't exist in the same way that you would say you 'know' fairies don't exist, right? [...]

Yes. I absolutely was not presenting an argument (nor could I provide any sort of rigorous one).

I've been an atheist for a dozen years and day-to-day, the difference between strong and weak atheism is splitting epistemological hairs. I don't think I'm quite an apatheist yet, but pretty close. My interest in religion has moved from intensely philosophical and personal at 19 to one of a more distant cultural one at 32.

 

[PaulX]

I think its too late. Atheism is already becoming the anti-everything religion. I often second guess revealing myself as an atheist. Last time I met a guy that was akin to the SS soldier in "Falling Down." we aren't on the same team.. I don't hate god, or religious belief. I hate laws based on religious beliefs affecting others. Thats about as far as it goes.

As a Christian, I think everyone can agree with that no matter what end of the spectrum you are on.

 

[Witchfinder General]

Rituals for Atheism? It already exists:

A fascinating read, although it steers very close to Ayn Randian Objectivism at times.

 

[GungHo]

These threads are always a blast.

I'm waiting for the establishment of an Athepope and the schism of an Antiathepope.

 

[3rdman]

I'm an atheist...it's not a practice. I don't believe. It is as simple as that. It's not a religion ffs.

This.Duh.

 

[Azulsky]

Instead of garden gnomes we should erect monoliths of obsidian then dance around them with sticks every sunday.

Kidding, we should just get extra sleep

 

[teruterubozu]

Join a frat.

 

[PaleFolklore]

Atheism has become so embarrassing over the past few years. Before I wouldn't feel was a big deal to tell someone I was an atheist. Now I'm ashamed that I'm immediately associated with neckbeards in fedoras. The idea of atheist rituals is cringe inducing.

 

[phileep]

Now, this may seem like a strange topic to many atheists. Let me explain.

Rituals are damn powerful. The way they interact with your mind is a bit like music or smell, very direct and unfiltered. Rituals forge emotional bonds and give the mind relationship in that sphere.

I have been in various religious rituals, the strongest being the "schmerzhafter Rosenkranz" ("the painful rosary"). After experiencing that, I understood why rural people in my country were that catholic. Experiencing that multiple times over your childhood, related to multiple deaths in your extensive cast of relatives... that shapes you. It's an intense, one hour recital. I admit, I was quite impressed. I never had experienced anything like it in my urban setting.

Now, why do I want to bring rituals to atheism? Because I sometimes feel atheists are not emotionally rooted in their practice, eventhough they have full undersanding of their views and the consequences they bring. Yet emotionally, it's unstable, getting people to react agressively and insecure. And I feel rituals could help with that issue somewhat.

Any suggestions?

It sounds like you want to be part of a religion. No problem with that dude, just find one that works for you.