I'm non-religious, but do believe in religious like practices, and that the routines and insight from them can be good for many people. Required? No. Helpful? Yes. I don't believe in a deity or afterlife, but I am a Zen Buddhist and believe in the teachings and practices. This confuses many people, both because they are ignorant as to what a Zen Buddhist is/does, and they don't understand why I can also consider myself atheist at the same time, as apparently everyone thinks Buddha was a god or some kind of deity that gets prayed to. There is no inherent function of atheism. It's lack of a belief in a God. That's it. By it's very nature it doesn't have a function. Does the fact that I'm not on astronaut have a function? Does that fact that I don't believe in dragons serve a function? No. There is no function of atheism, it's just a lack of something. But you mention humanism in your post, which is good. I think the problem with many atheists is they take pride in being against something and not believing in a God, when by itself, that means absolutely nothing. All it does is put many of them against religion and that's just kind of silly and childish. Bill Clinton has a quote that I use a lot where he said "Instead of being against something, be FOR something". It's relevant in situations like this. To most atheists I say "Great, you're against religion and don't believe in it, but what DO you believe in, what are you FOR?" Many don't understand or don't have an answer. For me that answer is Buddhism and outer space. For you it's humanism. For some it's pantheism. There are all kinds of beliefs and teachings that can be followed that have nothing to do with belief in a deity, that can still provide many benefits to your life, and help you keep focused on the important things. And I urge people, even atheists, to find "something to be for", even if it's just science or the stars, as that's where we really came from. So, although I am technically an atheist, I hate labeling myself an atheist because it seems so pointless. Might as well label myself an 'asaurus' because I'm not a lizard, it's just as meaningful as calling myself an atheist. Why people focus so much on something they aren't I've never understood.After all, isn’t the function of atheism to clear the room for better conversations?
The bottom line is that the word 'atheist' has a lot of baggage (deserved or not), and people tend to pigeonhole you if you say that's what you are. That's why I prefer to say "I'm not superstitious" in such situations. Less baggage, and it's almost as good at getting a rise out of people ;-)
There are many that really seem to enjoy being atheist for the sole reason of pissing off religious people. Like I'm talking about the /r/atheism type people, the "Facebook Warriors" who feel the need to "educate" everyone with facts/logic whenever someone dare thanks God on their own Facebook page or something equally trivial. And then I think everyone else who is just simply and atheist but doesn't care to really talk to people about it ends up grimmacing everytime people from the militant camp open their mouths.
Interesting parallels here (I think) between atheism and homosexuality, re: "militant".
I don't know if I agree. I mean, atheism's function seems clear to me - to organize and marginalize traditional religions. You can't compare that to not being an astronaut or not believing in dragons. If everyone in the world believed deeply in dragons without evidence... then not believing in dragons would all of a sudden have an important function.By it's very nature it doesn't have a function. Does the fact that I'm not on astronaut have a function? Does that fact that I don't believe in dragons serve a function? No.
Sure I could, if I spent all my time talking about how stupid astronauts and dragons are, and found others like me to talk about how much better we are for not being astronauts or not believing in dragons. Again, don't get me wrong, people HAVE found a function to atheism, which is to belong to a group and counter culture to religion. But I said it has no "inherent" function, which it doesn't. Exactly, we would have created that function. Inherently it does not have one.You can't compare that to not being an astronaut or not believing in dragons.
If everyone in the world believed deeply in dragons without evidence... then not believing in dragons would all of a sudden have an important function.
Alright, I think this become pointless nit picking because we essentially agree.
We do, I just think my post wasn't very clear.