Religion had good intentions, but nature has better

[FatAndFaithless]

I don't see how that's an "atheist" ideology, that's some bizarre supremacy complex and a violently anti-theistic viewpoint. They can say "atheists should do this and not that" all they like, but there is no atheist 'doctrine' to which they can appeal. If they're trying to form a clubhouse of maniacal douchebags that happen to be atheist, fine, but its the 'maniacal douchebag' part that is driving their actions.

Religion in itself is neutral.

Erm..not really, no. Just about every religion has pronouncements about how to act morally. Those are, by definition, either moral, amoral, or immoral. That's how people can be motivated by religion to do certain things, because they get the instruction (and/or justification) from their religious ideas. Are there bad people that would hate gay people anyway without ever hearing of the old testament? Yup. But there are plenty more that have their bigotry or hatred justified or enhanced because their belief system provides them a magical reason to feel the way they do, and especially with children, growing up with that justification in place could warp an otherwise neutral viewpoint into whatever the specific sect wants.

There are no pronouncements of atheism, or any priests or captains or martyrs. If people want to try and stick a bunch of not atheism stuff onto atheism, then yes that would become an ideology, but it would no longer be atheism, it would be something else.

Like the example of communism given earlier, it did indeed have a more or less atheist requirement, but nobody in their right mind would point to communism and say "that's what you get if you follow atheism", because
1) it's not.
2) the bolted-on beliefs have nothing to do with atheism, just how the atheists that formed the system felt about certain topics to begin with.

So, your maniacal douchebag group you mentioned. Are they atheists? Yup. Do any of their ideas besides "I don't believe in god" count as "atheism"? Nope.

[Confused Ape]

Yes, they're attaching beliefs to something that's only disbelief. I repeat, you have to attach something, since there's no ideology in not believing in any kind of higher being.

I agree with you here. Those scary atheists showed me that even some atheists aren't immune from forming beliefs about atheism and trying to turn those beliefs into an ideology.

Religion, atheism, politics and science etc etc are all neutral. They can be used for good or ill depending on the humans involved.

Religion in itself is neutral.

Erm..not really, no. Just about every religion has pronouncements about how to act morally. Those are, by definition, either moral, amoral, or immoral.

So what if everyone became an atheist. Would there be ideas about what behaviour is moral, amoral and immoral or would there be no laws at all so everyone could do what they liked?

[abaris]

Religion, atheism, politics and science etc etc are all neutral. They can be used for good or ill depending on the humans involved.

No, religions all have codes of conduct. Atheism hasn't. So if some holy book says to hate people riding bycicles their followers will do just that. Atheism is neutral. It's individual, since there is no such book and no such code.

[Minimalist]

But where do we find that often self fulfilling and euphoric happiness we may experience in religious ceremonies at one time in our lives

I always thought religious ceremonies were boring as shit.

[FatAndFaithless]

Yes, they're attaching beliefs to something that's only disbelief. I repeat, you have to attach something, since there's no ideology in not believing in any kind of higher being.

I agree with you here. Those scary atheists showed me that even some atheists aren't immune from forming beliefs about atheism and trying to turn those beliefs into an ideology.

Religion, atheism, politics and science etc etc are all neutral. They can be used for good or ill depending on the humans involved.

Erm..not really, no. Just about every religion has pronouncements about how to act morally. Those are, by definition, either moral, amoral, or immoral.

So what if everyone became an atheist. Would there be ideas about what behaviour is moral, amoral and immoral or would there be no laws at all so everyone could do what they liked?

Of course we'd have ideas of right and wrong, don't be daft. But none of those ideas come from atheism, they'd come from moral value systems (which atheism has none of). Humanism, secularism, transhumanism, fanatical adherence to the american constitution, whatever system fr which you derive your morals has statements of moral right and wrong something atheism doesn't have.

Atheism gets no credit for moral actions (I'd chalk that up to a sense of empathy and humanism) but nor can you point to an immoral action or belief (say..."we should kill all theists ") and call that a result of atheism.

Atheism is an utterly neutral proposition because there are no moral precepts or pronouncements.

[Confused Ape]

It's individual, since there is no such book and no such code.

And we only have that freedom to be individual because atheist maniacal douchebags haven't taken control. If they ever do they'll create a 'book' full of codes and what they've declared to be moral and immoral.

Everything goes back to human nature.

[FatAndFaithless]

But again, that wouldn't be "atheism", that would he "maniacal douchebagism". You can't bolt more beliefs onto a singular position and keep calling it that same position.

[abaris]

Atheism is an utterly neutral proposition because there are no moral precepts or pronouncements.

And it's completely individualistic. Not believing in a deity is the only common denominator, since I usually wouldn't even piss on someone on fire following the teachings of Ayn Rand. But they're atheists too.

[FatAndFaithless]

Exactly, and nobody (no reasonable person anyway) would point to ayn rands book and say that is "atheism".

[Confused Ape]

I'm going back to the opening post.

Religion had good intentions to make humans feel certain and safe, but nature has it's way regardless. We're all victim to consciousness and rational.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm, after thought: political ideologies do the same. But is this ideal? Is there a black and white answer for humanity and will it make us happy?

Religion didn't/doesn't have any intentions because it's a human invention. This takes us back to humans. All we can say is that some religious people had/have good intentions while others didn't/don't. Some atheists have good intentions while others don't.

Some people believe in a higher power without following any religion. Some atheists try to create a dogma out of a lack of belief in deities.

So, yes, atheism in itself is neutral but it all goes back to human nature in the end.

Humans have a tendency to divide the world into black and white when it's really shades of grey. Atheists are humans and the really scary ones took this division to extremes with their insistence that all religion is bad and atheism is good.

So what is atheism, really? We have one view of it in this forum where we're looking at it from the point of view of philosophy. Atheist maniacal douchebags have a different view of atheism. If they get into power, their view will be the 'correct one' and people who disagree will be in a lot of trouble.