What kind of atheist are you?

wolfman24 said:

The term is overrated. Atheist to me is the total rejection of any force or power greater than yourself. I would like to know how many people out there ACTUALLY think that. Some agree that "nature" is more powerful than them others think science or math or some other force or power. Does GOD have to be caporial (flesh and blood)(sp?)? Does IT even have to have form? Could IT even be just an IDEA that extends beyond yourself or understanding? IF so you are not an atheist. I am an aethesist which means I believe in the aesthetics of faith, I reject man made religion but accept some of the teachings of many of them. I believe in a supreme power that created the universe using what we refer to as the laws of nature (biology, physics and chemistry).

I have been called an atheist because I don't practice or belong to any religion. SO?

Click to expand...

It sounds like you're a Deist.

Have no idea what the is. Aethesist is a term which is used by those of us who accept the idea of the conservative version of the Gnostic faith. If I remember correctly some jerk back in the 30's trademarked the term Gnostic referring to those who believe in the mystical aspects of it. I am not one of those. As I said I reject organized religion because it is man based, I do not believe that a person needs a building to pray or worship in nor a hierarchy to tell me how to think. I accept the Creator in my mind and not on my sleeve and what I believe is mine. As I said I have accepted certain concepts from various religions and using them plus other things have formulated what is for me a spiritual way of living combined with my everyday life. the two cannot be separated.

In 37 years of thinking this way I have only met 4 others who believe the same way. We are a dying breed I guess and its a damn shame.

I am anti-Jehova (anti-theist), anti-Antichrist atheist.

Just now I'm in conflict with some religious folk who dream that the 95% of mankind is killed to meet their religious utopia and perfectionist BS.

Morrigi said:

Indeed, it's far too specific. The guy's really missing the forest for the trees here.

Having said that, I do not believe in any kind of personal god such as that of Abrahamic belief and will not unless empirical and scientific evidence is presented.

While there is no real evidence of the reality of a non-personal entity or deistic view, the possibility is intriguing. I would say that with our truly limited knowledge of the universe it is impossible to tell what truly lies among and behind the stars. We have made great strides in the form of scientific knowledge in recent decades but I predict that a majority of it will be rewritten, amended upon, outright discarded, or replaced entirely in another few decades. Such are the machinations of the scientific process and reality itself, we have a very long way to go as humanity.

One would hope that someday we'll actually get there.

Click to expand...

No matter how much what science tells us, I would suggest not taking off a space suit in space, or not to jump out of a airplane without a device to break your fall.

Just because some people leave the possibility for a god it isnt evidence of a god. Not knowing how something happened doesnt make it rational to assume that magic was the cause.

Science is a fluid as you might believe. Gravity still exists no matter what science says.

FreedomFromAll said:

No matter how much what science tells us, I would suggest not taking off a space suit in space, or not to jump out of a airplane without a device to break your fall.

Just because some people leave the possibility for a god it isnt evidence of a god. Not knowing how something happened doesnt make it rational to assume that magic was the cause.

Science is a fluid as you might believe. Gravity still exists no matter what science says.

Click to expand...

No argument here. The question, however, comes with our understanding of gravity and the vacuum of space. In layman's terms, we know that it does stuff, but does it do more stuff? How does it do said stuff? Does it interact with other stuff we don't know about yet? Can we harness it artificially to do even more stuff?

Morrigi said:

No argument here. The question, however, comes with our understanding of gravity and the vacuum of space. In layman's terms, we know that it does stuff, but does it do more stuff? How does it do said stuff? Does it interact with other stuff we don't know about yet? Can we harness it artificially to do even more stuff?

Click to expand...

An answer to one or all of those questions wouldnt change the observable. Unless there are confounded changes to the laws of physics a apple is not fall into the sky or float in the air just because we learned more about what we call gravity. AN apple will fall down no matter what new science is discovered.

In the same way a god will not appear just because someone told a story. The truth of the matter of the existence of gods is that there is absolutely nothing but stories and no evidence to support those stories. At least in science when someone makes a claim they are required to back that claim. While the theist only goes as far as making the claim and refusing any responsibility to back that claim. They instead get creative and offer some excuse why it would be impossible for them to back their claim.

There isnt a rational reason to even investigate the notion of gods. Where would one start in such a investigation? The stories written and told by humans is all that exists on the theists plate. They will try to claim more but they have nothing. If they did have something they would not need faith since it would be observable. And such observations would be the center of research by humanity. So that leaves the question what possibility would one be leaving? You would still need at least a minute amount of faith in the stories of gods in order to leave room for a god to exist. What agnosticism turns out to be is confirmation bias. AN agnostic leaves the possibility of gods because they heard a story about them. Agnostics did not get the idea of gods from deduction or rational reasoning. They got the concept of gods from other humans that shared stories about gods.

So logically an agnostic should also leave the possibility of anything that a human could think of that has no evidence. Even if that anything is impossible. Logic cant be applied for one thing but denied for something else. So then for agnostics that leave the possibility of gods then they must also leave room for anything that I can think of. For example the existence of the value of infinity would mean that possibilities are infinite. In such a case there could be contradictive existence. Everything that is, is not.

So if possibly a god could exist then anything could exist that a human dreams up. And as I just brought up, then that would mean that it would be possible that nothing exists. ANd there can be no argument that disputes nothingness, since science hasnt evolved far enough yet to know everything. So is everything not known possible?


Dont mistake ignorance for something real.

Intellectual atheist for a long time, which led to my present state of non-theist.

Andalublue said:

There's often quite a lot of blanket name-calling around DP. Woe betide anyone who lumps the likes of the WBC with the mainstream of protestantism, or Islamists with ordinary Moslems. Well, the same can be said for atheism. Not all atheists believe the same things or view their beliefs in the same way.

This is a rare study that actually makes an attempt to tease out a typology of atheism. Does it ring true? If you're an atheist, which type are you? Me, I reckon I'm 2/3 Type 2, and 1/3 Type 6.

It's quite a fun read for an academic document too...

Non-Belief Research in the United States

Click to expand...

I'm predominantly a "Type 2" activist atheist. I think the category naturally lends itself to a bit of anti-theism, because a lot of work being done on feminism, LGBT issues, church/state, and human rights is fighting stuff that mainly exists because of religion, or at least is being justified with religion.

I don't necessarily expend my activism on anti-theism specifically, but in practice, a lot of these problems do involve fighting religious excuses for injustice.