I realize these advanced concepts are difficult for you. Let me give you a simple analogy, (that's when you compare something to something else). There are motorcycle gangs, but not every motorcycle rider is part of a gang.
Atheism is no more a society than Christianity is. It takes individuals within a category coming together for purposes related to that category to make up a society. For instance, being a Christian doesn't mean you belong to any church or organization. It's merely a belief system, and societies/churches/organizations can come out of it. You're not still misspelling petty attacks in lieu of misspelling logical rebuttals are you?
You're right, I'm not good at catching your goalpost shifting constructs, because they keep shifting. But there are motorcycle societies, and it's members are motor cycle riders. Did you know that? Seriously though, what's the difference between ''atheist'' and ''atheism''? jan.
I see where you're coming from now. You're thinking that I assign all atheists to atheist societies. Am I correct? jan.
Atheist societies are a sub-category of atheists (all). So it would be wrong to say that atheists are a society, even though they can be in one.
What I meant to say is that there are ''atheist societies''. Seattle seemed to come across as saying there can be no non-believers society, and then gave his usual golfing analogy which implied that one cannot form a society of not believing, as opposed to believing. jan.
It's true that atheism isn't a dogma or method of social organization. Everything that atheist organizations do is additional to their non-belief in god. That's why atheist movements that include elements of social justice are "called atheist +".
No. It's also separation of church and state, feminism, science, atheist outreach, community service, all kinds of secular things.
Are you saying there is no atheist society ? and you call her a liar, call me a liar, because I can google for atheist society were they ask for membership and ask for donation .
A "non-believer" is not an agnostic. A non-believer is an atheist. An agnostic is a person who says he doesn't have enough information to decide whether God exists. I'm sure many of them, just to be safe, try to live in a way that God would reward if he were real. Many atheists live that way also, but for a different reason. We understand that tolerance and cooperation make a better world for all of us. I rag on religious folk here on SciForums because half of our members seem to come here expecting to rag and be ragged on. But out in the carbon world I just live and let live. I think the word you're searching for is a demographic. That is the driving force behind American Atheists, founded by Madeline O'Hare in 1963. The Counterculture of the Baby Boomers was just emerging in many urban regions so it was safe for atheists to "come out of the closet." But there was still tremendous antipathy toward us, so protecting our civil liberties was a priority. Of course the organization worked for separation of church and state, but it had to devote considerable time and energy into simply keeping atheists from being treated exactly the way Afro-Americans were treated at that time. I lived in Arizona in the 1950s, and the "frontier culture" had not completely faded away. There was still a sense of "if you can carry your weight, we need you here." So both atheists and Afro-Americans were tolerated. Sometimes grudgingly, sometimes enthusiastically, but usually at least tolerated.
