As a grandmother, a mother of 3 adult children, and a wife of 37 years, I am puzzled by the question (often asked) “What replaces the [religious] creeds and doctrines and rituals” if one is not a religious person.
My husband and I have raised 3 educated, kind, hard working, and responsible adult children.
We relied on our love for each other, and for our children, and depended upon our judgement to make the best decisions and choices that we could.

I agree, Kate. As an agnostic, I don’t need the formal doctrine of a religion to tell me how I should act toward others. I try to act in ways that I myself would want to be treated.

I told a Christian acquaintance years back that I believed I possessed a heightened sense of right and wrong. He then asked me where I thought this awareness came from. I knew he wanted me to say that God was behind this moral compass. However, as an agnostic, that’s not something I can say for sure. Instead, I told him my belief — at least right now, in this realm — is that it is the result of the evolution of a coordinated existance on humans’ part; that, as a pack animal without fangs and claws, it was a necessary approach to better man’s odds toward survival.

Still, I believe it’s evolved to be even more involved than just The Golden Rule — and personal happiness is at its core. I’m currently working on a written piece to this effect.

For me, the entire article was totally ruined by the dismissive phrase,”On Oct 1, a different disposable message…”
I thought the idea of these columns is that they were to be respectful and informative.
What is it about Mr. Townsend that he felt the need, to insert himself,with such a snide remark. It was petty and thoughtless.
Perhaps Mr. Townsend should attend the Ethical Society so that he could witness what civility looks and sounds like.

Kate,
Not sure what disappointed you in Tim’s article. The sign on the billboard “Imagine no religon” is really pointing to that question. It is on a big billboard so clearly it is evangelism and it doesn’t say anything about what no religon means, so what is one to conclude

The comments of Gaylor are not helpful. Her comments are all negative about religon. People have done horrible things in the ‘name of Christianity’ and in the ‘name of Islam’ and of any other religion but people have done horrible things period. People have also done wonderful things in the ‘name of Christianity’ and in the ‘name of Islam’ and any other religion. Gaylor’s comments on religion show the same type of stereotyping and misinformation that you think atheist’s face. But the biggest problem is Gaylor doesn’t say anything about what Atheism is, she is too focused on what is wrong with relgion.

This is the problem with ‘atheism’ that it defines itself in a negative form; a-theism i.e., no-God. If you can’t prove there is a God then, by definition, you can’t prove there is no God. Agnostic is a different thing. Agnostic is ‘I don’t know’ which is a more honest position. It would be better if Atheists worked on defining what they are rather than what they are not.

As you may know there is tremendous misinformation about Islam and Muslims in this country. But there is a burden on us Muslims here to work to live what Islam trully is. That is the best way to overcome misinformation. So the billboard tells us what Atheists are not. But what ARE they? There was a very good episode on ‘30 days’ about an atheist lady going to live with a southern christian family. Best way to overcome stereotypes is to be visible and live what you are.

Tim, if anything is giving ‘air’ to the ‘atheist’ position. Maybe Atheist’s can take the cue and be visible and show role models of what they are.

Peace

Khalid, there was also an episode of “30 Days” in which a devout Christian lived with a Muslim family for 30 days, and dressed in the traditional garb, ate the same food, prayed five times a day toward Mecca, etc. He came away from the experience, if I recall correctly, with a new sense of understanding. I wonder when that show will be back? It’s a good show.

My sense of the word “atheism” rests on a fine line. As you said, it’s “a-theism” which in my book means literally, “lack of a believe in God.” To me there is a strong difference between “does not believe in God” and “believes there is no God.” People with a lack of belief in God might choose to call themselves Agnostics, because it carries a less harsh connotation.

As you said, Agnostics like to say that they “don’t know.” But really, none of us “knows” for sure whether God exists, or whether he prefers to go by “God” or “Allah” or any of a myriad other names. None of us really knows. We can have faith in the heart. But we can’t know in the brain.

So rather than be cruel and hateful to anyone based on things we don’t, and can’t, know, I think it’s about time we all began to respect one another’s right to believe as we wish.

I would also like to add that if there is something to quibble about, the choice of wording of the billboard could have been a lot better. Inviting others to imagine what you are (not religion) leaves open a lot of negative possibilities. Atheists may not like to claim either Pol Pot or Stalin as within their circle but certainly the Gulags of Stalin that killed over 20 million people and Pol Pot’s Cambodia with mass killings of over 3 million were two real results of ‘imagining no relgion’.

Dave,
‘A’ if my limited understanding of latin is true (and I believe it is) literally means ‘no’ (e.g., a-tom no-cut. That is it is the smallest piece. You cannot cut it further). So Atheism translates no-diety or no-God. You are right different people may choose to have different understanding of what it means to be an atheist. My comments are towards the billboard and what the leader of the Atheist movement Annie Laurie Gaylor said. It is all negative about religion but nothing about what is atheism. As an example, if I want you to understand Islam (which I really don’t. That is a personal choice) I don’t start by saying what is terrible about your faith. But even worse, I don’t say anything about what is good about Islam. How does that help you understand Islam? I am leaving you to take input from elsewhere and there is far more negative out there as it is so I did not accomplish anything. The problem is atheism starts with the premise that relgion is bad and if that is a wrong impression unfortunately the comments of Gaylor reinforce it.

I do agree we should respect each others right to believe as we wish. The Qur’an actually says ‘There is no compulsion in religion’. The Qur’an also says ‘race with each other for excellence’. I think you can see all the episodes of 30 days online. The ‘muslim’ one was good. I really liked the one about illegal immigrants in LA and the minimum wage one.

I think the intent of the billboard is being mis-interpreted. The purpose is not not get people to change their minds about their practice of religion, but to:
1) let people with doubts know there are others out there
2) get the general population in the area know there are non-believers in the community - that atheists are not the “evil others”, but your family, friends, etc

The last time I checked the “standard” polls run every year or few years, atheism was the only question on a voting question where more than 50% of people say they will not vote for a person - more than 50% of the population would vote for a Muslim, or a gay person. Yes, perhaps marginally so, and the bigotry still shows through, but not as deeply as the bigotry against atheists.

I am tired of being labeled as the “evil other” simply because I don’t share a belief in a religion. I am tired of being labeled as “amoral” because I don’t believe in somebody else’s god. Doing the right thing because you don’t want to burn in your hell for eternity is not morality, it is fear. Morality is doing the right thing because it is the right thing.

Simian

This tendency to define ourselves by how we are different from someone else is part of the human condition. It is much, much easier to say, “I’m NOT like X” than it is to say, “I am like Y”. First off, the first construction requires no action or specific behavior on my part. I don’t have to DO anything to “not” be something. If I say what or who I am (or perhaps want to be) then I have just created myself a behavioral standard to follow.

Second, to define ourselves by what we are, or aspire to be, requires a significant level of self-knowledge, and we are really bad at that.

I’m reminded of the story in Luke of the Pharisee and the Publican (Luke 18:9-20). The pharisee went to the temple to pray, and thanked God that he was not like these others, that he went every day, that he kept the fasts, and so on. The Publican (tax gatherer in some translations), went to pray and begged for mercy because he was a sinner. The question of the parable, of course, was this: which man is truly righteous before God?

When we thank God that we are not like others, when we spend all our energy looking for flaws in others, then we are fundamentally missing the point. Aren’t we?

Thanks for the comments. I agree that the billboard’s message is ambiguous, although John Lennon’s whole song makes his values clear by talking about “living for today,” “living life in peace,” “sharing all the world.” I also agree that the quotes from the spokesperson aren’t that helpful, but (a) we don’t know all she actually said, and (b) one of the big problems in reporting on religions, as we all know, is the problem of Who speaks for a group? There’s a big difference between saying, here’s one person/group and this is what they said, versus, here’s what atheists/Muslims/Christians/humanists/whoever believe, based on what this one person/group said. Gaylor is not “the leader of the Atheist movement”–there is no such thing. There is no Atheist pope or equivalent, nor could there be. God knows I don’t even speak for all members of the Ethical Society of St. Louis

The billboards I like best so far in this area are the ones that say, “Don’t believe in a god? You’re not alone.” They aren’t evangelical, but merely trying to provide support to people without supernatural beliefs, who often do feel isolated in many places in America.

I, too, enjoy Mr. Townsend’s work, but felt he was a bit adrift in this article.

First, let me dispose of the persnickety, annoyingly pedantic, picking-fly-specks-out-of-the-pepper detail. Atheists cannot evangelize religious believers…because to evangelize means to preach the gospel or to convert to Christianity. Although Atheists - like Muslims, Buddhists, and Pastafarians - cannot evangelize, they can proselytize.

Grammar police duties now disposed of, I would like to second Kate’s sentiment.

As an atheist, I am bemused by the suggestion that thinking I live in a natural world created and governed by natural processes is a “belief in nothing”. I am bemused by the suggestion that the journey of my life must be without joy or meaning if I don’t believe there is an eternal, mystical Disneyland at the end of the journey. I am bemused by the suggestion that I cannot figure out how to behave ethically without a supernatural, invisible authority figure dictating rules, watching my every move, and threatening to punish me if I disobey.

Perhaps much of the problem with the article is that Tim tries to cover too much ground. It seems he is trying both to examine the atheist paradigm, and issues of atheists proselytizing in one brief article. Each is a complex subject in its own right, and even one of the two could scarcely be dealt with in such a short article.

Khalid - FYI, “atheist” is from the Greek by way of French, literally “without god” (”theos” in Greek). Deist and its variations have their roots in Latin, from “deus” meaning “god”.

If I might react to your reference to Stalin and Pol Pot, who seem to be popular whipping boys for theists. I think major historical incidents tend to happen for complex reasons. Most historians, for instance, agree that the Crusades were prompted by political and economic factors as well as religious fervor.

No question these two were self professed atheists and no question that they committed terrible atrocities. Considering the record of massacre and repression under a series of Christian Tsars, I have to question to what extent Stalin’s crimes resulted from his atheism and to what extent they were a continuation of traditional Russian despotism.

If we attribute Pol Pot’s crimes solely to his atheism, do we attribute the Armenian genocide (one to 1.5 million dead) solely to the Muslim faith of the Ottoman rulers? I think both interpretations would be overly simplistic.