Do Atheists rebel against standard religions?

Question

Is the culture of a common Atheist rebellious against the moral constructs of religion? If the world were a completely secularist one, would morality be defined?

If, being a sentient, and domesticated species, we still understood how to love each other, would there be rebellion against said morality?

Ultimately , does religion poise a spurious means for morality that affronts Atheists, spawning rebellion?

Answer 1

I'm a bit disappointed - it seems to me this question isn't up to your usual standards.
For starters, I doubt there IS a "culture of a common atheist." And while some atheists might well be offended by the moral constructs of some/all religions, just how would they "rebel"? By violating those "moral standards?"
If the world were completely secularised, I suspect that the definitions of morality would be at least as many and varied as they are now.
"If we understood how to love each other (well, in fact I'd say that we understand how to right now, but it's putting that love into practice that's a problem) would there be rebellion against said morality?"
Ah, which morality? The moral constructs imposed by religions or the morality of a completely secularist society?
If the former, well, at the heart of all the major religions is the concept of our loving one another. But, as the late, great G.K. Chesterton once said about Christianity (it also applies to all the others):
"Christianity hasn't failed; it's simply never been tried."
As for your last sentence, well, it seems to me to pose the same question as your first. If you think that the answer's "Yes", where are all those affronted, rebelling atheists - are they organized at all? And why would ALL atheists be either affronted or rebellious unless the religious majority tried to impose its will upon them?

Answer 2

I am an atheist (I do not know if any gods exist, and work with the assumption that they do not, pending proof of a god's existence).

I do not rebel against all organised religion, and that is not the definition of atheism. Atheism is simply not believing in any gods. In my youth I studied Buddhism and was quite taken with its philosophies; if I ever take up a religion for any reason, this will probably be it. Please note that Buddhism as defined by Siddhartha Gautama (sp?) is atheistic; Buddha was a teacher, not a god.

Morality is not only defined through religion -- morality is simply guidelines on the right course of action where no-ones' interests are directly impacted (my own definition, may be inaccurate). Ethics cover the aspects of life that involve not hurting anyone else.

Both religion and society pose some spurious forms of "morality" (as well as some which are well grounded and can be justified easily). It is not the atheists' role to rebel against these, but society's as a whole. Rebellion is not necessitated here, only steady social change as opinions and habits shift between one generation and the next.

Answer 3

Frankly, I take issue with the idea that morality necessarily comes from "god" or religion. I think that morals and ethics are the natural offshoot of humans living in groups. The things that are accepted across the board as being "moral," ie. not killing, not stealing, etc. are all things that make living in a group easier and predate religion as we know it. This morality has a great deal of empathy attached to it. I should not steal because I would not like to be stolen from, and so on and so forth. As the human mindset has evolved it has become possible to see this as "doing the right thing for the sake of doing the right thing."

Religion's hand in morality in the last few centuries has gone beyond what I will call "natural morality" and extended itself into subjects like obscenity and sexuality. This is where disagreement sets in. This is where "do what is right thing because it is the right thing to do" becomes "do this because we say so." Naturally there has been a certain amount of rebellion, especially among non-believers as we generally would like to know why we are being told not to do something. "God does not approve," is not a good enough reason for us.

Also, some of us, myself included, feel that religion detracts from a person's ability to choose to do the right thing by making that choice about getting a reward or avoiding a punishment. When someone does do the right thing it is often atrributed to being "god's will," or "It was what god needed me to do." Strangely, we also hear this when god "tells" a leader to send his people into war.

So, killing thousands is okay if it is "god's will," but being gay is not okay because it is "against god." There seems to be little rhyme or reason to religious morality other than the fact that the things that the church deems as "moral" tend to bring people to the church, even (especially?) if this means war, and the things that are deemed "immoral" generally tend to distance the common man from church-related activities or have a hard time making generation after generation of new churchgoers, which is the "problem" with homosexuality.

In short, despite what we are constantly told, morality is not dependent on the existence of a god. If the world were completely secular we would have only this "natural morality," which would be defined. If we all truly loved one another I don't think that there would be any rebellion against this way of thinking. And finally, it is not so much a "spurious means for morality" that is so disturbing to us, but rather the inane secondary-morality imposed by faith.

Answer 4

It would seem that Atheism is suffering from the plight we know as Kitsch. The Renaissance (1450 -2000) eroded the Atheist's forum.
However, Atheists are often obsessed with morality in the secular world. One could suggest that secular law actually supports and develops moral codes and dictums - codes that seem unaffected by Atheist or non Atheist mandates and wishes. Biblical history can be seen to hold greater room for Apocrypha - a suspension of disbelief - a place where morality is not an issue.

Answer 5

Why overgeneralise all atheists? It assumes there is only one type that exist.

People can be moral without religion. It exists today on this planet. Morality exists in secular societies like Sweden for example where only 2% of the population practicw a religion.

Love does not have to do soley with morality. One can love and be immoral, amoral or moral. Evil people can love.

If you do not believe in God the only reason you would rebel as an athiest is out of your own insecurity. This means you are not sure of your atheism.

And why do you assume athiests are immoral?

The philospohy of ethics and morality in a western tradition stands outside of any religion.

And so I think this question (actually many loosley related questions) is problematic.

Answer 6

Ethical Atheists along with ethical Christians and anybody else interested in ethics need to rebel against the abuse of ethics in standard religions: Jesus was an iconoclast too.

Its all too easy to fall into the carefully set Christian trap that morality is the unique domain of religion. Secular morality has been defined by many philosophers but they will continue to debate the issue, as well they should.

Thats essentially the difference between a religious based moral code and a secular one anyway, namely one can debate it.

There is likely to be debate about ethics for a long long time and thats OK. Moral questions are rarely black and white. Its more of a continuum and in the middle where there are fine distinctions then there will always be room for debate.

However its clear, or should be clear to anyone who is interested in ethics that the whole subject needs to be brought to the forefront of our modern culture instead of economics.

Too many people link ethics with religion with disasterous results. They are either blinded to the subtleties of right and wrong by religious competition and bigotry or they just throw out the whole concept of ethics along with the religious traditions that they tire of.

Answer 7

I'm not sure. I think in some cases that can be true, but not all cases. If you're trying to put athiests in a slot, to understand why they won't believe, I think you're looking in the wrong place. But if you would just like to understand if there might be different reasons for there being athiests, I'm sure you'll find different reasons.

Personally, it seems like to me that athiests seem to rebel more against what they see as old wives tales, which are indeed formulated into certain views to guide certain values. I believe that if there is rebellion, it is an afterthought when realizing that they could have been duped into following some idiotic dogma.

Answer 8

First, I would like to address this excerpt "Is the culture of a common Atheist..." By use of the word "culture" you are making reference to the following..."The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought." this makes it sound as though we/I "Atheist's" are of an entire different species separate from those, shall we say believers. I personally being one such "Atheist", see no reason why one would believe my disbelief in religion is a rebellious action towards the said "moral constructs of religion" (being the concept of what is good and what is bad). In fact some may be surprised to hear that the "moral constructs" of an atheist are in most case identical to those of a Catholic, Jew, Baptist, etc...etc...Those of you as followers look down upon me and question how is it he refuses to acknowledge God (Or whichever authority you answer to.), while at the same time I question how you allow yourselves to be dictated by a bedtime story without the slightest hint of factual evidence to support it! I love religions, I find them undeniably fascinating and alluring. In the defenses of Atheists, we are more commonly discriminated against by followers of such mentioned standard religions than visa versa. My personal disbelief is based on the years of research I have committed towards expanding my understanding of world religions and followers of such. If only we had such a benefit.

Answer 9

What I find is that most Atheist I have met are desperately seeking something or someone to prove the existence of God to them, little realizing that the answer is strictly spiritual and lies inside themselves. SO CLOSE AND YET SO FAR.

Atheists are, sad to say, NONE spiritual people. They believe on only in what they see, read, hear, smell or touch. But amazingly can be very caring to their fellow human beings in their own way, which is usually in a very 'Gruff' (angry) manner. The Atheists do not have the ability to perceive in the spiritual realm. And thus are not to openly free with their emotions to others, except with the emotion of anger. I find them very boring to converse with. HEAVEN is an example... most of us imagine heaven to be a sweet land of peace, contentment, harmony and love which we hope to reach after death. The Atheist doesn't believe in heaven at all. The Atheist believes that after death we go into nothingness...black nothingness. Or as one described it to me ' we die become fertilizer go Thru the biological chain of nature and are born again as some new creature with no memory of any previous existence'. Being an Atheist is not really about religious dissent or rebellion nor does it have to do with morality.

Answer 10

I've known moral atheists. They aren't rebelling against ALL morality, just organized religion. Many are turned off by the hypocritical behaviour of their church but still have a conscience.