Atheism: Religion Philosophy or What?

I've generally picked up on the feeling through a handful of blog posts and my own experience that one of the strongest disadvantages or negatives of atheism is that there is virtually no sense of community, especially in comparison to organized religion. This is most likely because atheism is a very modern conviction -something new- that has not had a significant time to develop, therefore very few large atheist groups exist. Indeed, the lack of companionship can be upsetting, for there is no platform to test one's feelings and ideas and experience solidarity as a community in , something vital to the existence of any particular ideology.

Now, if one truly considers atheism as a religion, not in the strictest of terms, but at least in the sense that it is a uniform ideology that holds a collection of adherents, the current absence of community is truly problematic. However, the thought of regarding atheism as a religion incites great apprehension in my heart, for many of my complaints with modern religions hold basis in the fact that they become spoiled when applied dogmatically and methodically. I am fearful that atheism would share many of the corrosive traits religions share today if standardized in such a way. Of course, this trepidation is perhaps overstated, for in my conception atheism is a humanist philosophy, and lacks central tenets or doctrine. More importantly, atheism does not claim to steward its' power from the divine or supernatural, a trait that is quickly abused in religions to the worst of consequence.

So I would pose the question- What is the future of atheism? Should it be considered a philosophy with particular beliefs and followers, or should any official classification be avoided? Could atheism possibly end up with many of the negative effects common in current religions as time passes?

In my opinion I would advocate that any unified system or institution intended to promote and officiate atheism should be delineated to the simplest of terms. If individuals should aspire to meet and discuss atheism then so be it: few things are more valuable than personal growth stemming from curiosity and conversation. However, when atheists attempt to adopt an agenda which undermines or intentionally subverts religion is when atheism becomes something no longer helpful and instead harmful to the general interest of society.

In today's world, religions, politicians, advertisers, and many others, speak much more of the imperfections and weaknesses of their adversaries rather than simply concerning themselves with whatever it is they profess to be true. It may be that individuals and groups gain their identity in many ways from how they are different from others, but in the case of personal belief solitary development should trump contention at any level. An athlete accomplishes nothing when pointing out the ways in which he or she is better than others, but only by competing and training in the sport that they compete in do they become truly better.

My point is that I think the potential of a world void of a God is vast and untapped, and that humanity would do well in discovering its full ability if it was to relentlessly pursue the depths of its scientific and experiential existence. The official form and structure of atheism should be given no thought, instead humans should focus their attention on what their world would look like without God, and what good they could do in such a world.

Universal Precedence

Here's a nice thought I've had, which will probably receive a much larger post at a later time.

To begin I should say I was primarily 'deconverted' if you will, not by reason or science, but by my feelings and emotion (this is also a longer story). Now, if I was offered sufficient evidence that God did exist, I would not change my beliefs, for I still contend that belief is not a choice that is made. But I would also have no fear or apprehensive, especially about dying. This is due to the fact that our world, especially nature, exhibits such abundant beauty (not to say it also beholds the worst of evils at times), that, if it was created by a God, such a God could never intend 'eternal torture and damnation' in his plan for humanity. In fact He would be much more concerned with humanity doing as He willed rather than what He should do with humanity when they don't.

For this reason I would be little perturbed if somehow the existence of God was proven to me, for I aspire to live as graciously toward my fellow man as possible. Ironically, many of the actions and choices I held dear as a Christian I still hold dear now. These choices simply contain much more meaning and value now, rather than adding to a growing web of foolishness and confusion as the did before.

Thus, I would propose that in the face of belief in God or not, compassion and kindness, tolerance and empathy, love and sincerity, basicly general qualities of benevolence easily supersede any other absolute. I would say that these qualities contain a certain condition of transcendence that one's ability to achieve them is far more important than what one believes, says, or thinks.

Indeed, some of the occasions I have felt most alive have been times of closer friendship, or in the presence of particularly beautiful and humbling scenes of nature.

Most importantly, I would say that this assertion is valid regardless of God, equally true with or without, and if many theists and religions could understand this concept rather than focusing on the superficial expression of 'belief alone=salvation' than this world might become a little bit better of a place to live in.

And what greater goal could any human have, at any point in time?