[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I think this depends greatly on how one chooses to define "religion," and moreover how atheism satisfies biologically and socially engrained predilictions towards religious thought and behaviour (cf. Fozzie_DeBear’s post #202).

I get what you’re saying, but I think these predilections are based on a psychological, and as a result, social need to either maintain ingroup membership or reject ingroup status. I don’t think religion plays a part except that it is a major group who persecutes another for their belief/lack of belief. I don’t think it’s any different from being a hockey fan, and then being a Flames fan and rejecting the Oilers and their fans. So in this instance, atheists would say R=NG.

I reject the idea that "religion" can be boiled down to a set of world view questions—religion is also a universal form of cultural expression and societal interaction.

Universal is a strong word. As is societal. Religion is a mechanism by which cultures have explained the unexplainable for as long as man stood upright. Social pressures are what define our beliefs. Society may have dozens of religions, but it is our social group that defines our religiosity. If you are raised in a Christian family it is pretty likely that you are going to adopt that particular form of Christianity. Same goes for any religion because religiosity is a learned behavior. Religion is a social construct and enforced by the social group in which we maintain membership.

As we have evolved so has our understanding of the world and universe around us. As a result there are many (14% of the world population, or about 1.05 billion people) who no longer ascribe to the idea of Supreme Being. These people come from all walks of life and exist in all cultures and societies, and many of them exist as a result of a spontaneous rejection of cultural or religious belief. So if anything you could argue that atheism is more universal as it is not restricted by culture or social pressures.

So yes, while atheism has removed the concept of god from the equation, proponents are not immune to tribalistic and emotional forces that cause us to think and behave in certain ways that map themselves onto religious behaviour. A number of Cheese's posts in this thread pose an interesting case of this in point: he has assumed a strongly apologetic stance to pontificate his atheism complete with straw man charicatures and an apologetically derived persecution complex.

I agree and disagree with you on this point. There are some atheists who take their non-belief seriously, and do so aggressively in defending their lack of belief. But I don’t see that tribalism or mapping onto religious behavior. Some of the things which define a religion are beliefs, practices, rituals, and texts which provide dogma. Atheists have a clear lack of belief. That is the whole thing with atheism – they don’t believe. Atheists also have no practices or rituals they follow. Maybe you can point out what you think these rituals might be, because coming from an old school Catholic upbringing I’m used to the whole pomp and circumstance of mass, the sacraments, and various observations we were expected to make throughout the year. I see that lacking in atheism. Also, maybe point out what text provides the dogma by which atheists establish their faith.

These points are all based off observations and questions I have had as I followed my path to discovery and non-belief. I look forward to hearing your take on these observations.