• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Atheists.

What type of atheist are you?

  • I consider myself a positive atheist.

    Votes: 8 24.2%

  • I consider myself a negative atheist.

    Votes: 19 57.6%

  • I consider myself an apatheist.

    Votes: 6 18.2%
  • Total voters
    33
29A

29A

Active member
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
450
Reaction score
171
Location
St. Louis, MO.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
There is a crucial difference among those who are atheists, and I've never seen a poll.

Wikipedia gives the following definitions.

Positive atheism (also called strong atheism and hard atheism) is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist.

Negative atheism (also called weak atheism and soft atheism) is any other type of atheism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert there to be none.

Rational Wiki notes an additional type, apatheism, who has no interest in accepting or denying claims that a god or gods exist or do not exist.

So what type of atheist are you?

Wikipedia article.
Rationalwiki article.
 
I used to be a negative atheist, but a little thinking got me away from it and into the realm of agnosticism which then lead to deism.
 
29A said:
There is a crucial difference among those who are atheists, and I've never seen a poll.

Wikipedia gives the following definitions.

Positive atheism (also called strong atheism and hard atheism) is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist.

Negative atheism (also called weak atheism and soft atheism) is any other type of atheism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert there to be none.

Rational Wiki notes an additional type, apatheism, who has no interest in accepting or denying claims that a god or gods exist or do not exist.

So what type of atheist are you?

Wikipedia article.
Rationalwiki article.
Click to expand...

I would have ticked Agnostic, had there been a button. But Apatheism is close enough.
 
I'm a positive atheist.

2009-02-16.jpg

obD3Y.jpg
 
By your definition I'm closer to a Negative athiest but at times I can be a positive athiest because while I cannot definitively rule out the existence of some for deity I really do think that people who take the biblical manmade account seriously are a little nuts.

Now by saying that I am offending many people who I give the utmost respect and deference, I do not believe faith in and of itself is bad or unhealthy except when it leads to extremism and rejection of clearly factual information such as evolution.

I tend to believe in a more less tangible idea of what controls the universe, the closest idea I could draw from is something closer to "The Force" from Star Wars, which I think with a bit less personality is a far better theory than a mystical sky god who gets angry about butt sex.

Just my 2 cents.
 
29A said:
There is a crucial difference among those who are atheists, and I've never seen a poll. Wikipedia gives the following definitions. Positive atheism (also called strong atheism and hard atheism) is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist. Negative atheism (also called weak atheism and soft atheism) is any other type of atheism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert there to be none. Rational Wiki notes an additional type, apatheism, who has no interest in accepting or denying claims that a god or gods exist or do not exist. So what type of atheist are you?
Click to expand...
Um, all of the above?
 
29A said:
There is a crucial difference among those who are atheists, and I've never seen a poll.

Wikipedia gives the following definitions.

Positive atheism (also called strong atheism and hard atheism) is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist.

Negative atheism (also called weak atheism and soft atheism) is any other type of atheism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert there to be none.

Rational Wiki notes an additional type, apatheism, who has no interest in accepting or denying claims that a god or gods exist or do not exist.

So what type of atheist are you?

Wikipedia article.
Rationalwiki article.
Click to expand...

That's always a tough one. On one hand I believe I'm not obligated to affirm or deny the existence of a god since we're born atheists, and were the subject of gods not to take place, I would never have been asked to affirm or deny them at all. That would most likely make me a soft atheist. On the other hand, the conversation does come up (at least on the interwebz, not so much irl), and in that instance I'm forced to make the statement that "as no evidence for gods have been forthcoming it's fair to conclude they don't exist." I suppose that's closer to positive atheism.
 
I liked apatheism but internet muslims and putting-god-before-yourself thinking changed all of that.
 
29A said:
There is a crucial difference among those who are atheists, and I've never seen a poll.

Wikipedia gives the following definitions.

Positive atheism (also called strong atheism and hard atheism) is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist.

Negative atheism (also called weak atheism and soft atheism) is any other type of atheism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert there to be none.

Rational Wiki notes an additional type, apatheism, who has no interest in accepting or denying claims that a god or gods exist or do not exist.

So what type of atheist are you?

Wikipedia article.
Rationalwiki article.
Click to expand...

Hard to answer, as I don't think there's a fundamental difference between a "negative" and "positive" atheist. If I say that the Earth revolves around the sun (positive statement), that doesn't mean that the Earth revolves around the sun with 100% certainy, rather that's the way the evidence points.

The real difference between a "negative" and "positive" atheist is simply an understanding of the burden of proof. If the burden of proof isn't on the crazies to prove their assertions but rather on us as the skeptical onlookers, then no positive statement of any kind can be made about anything. Nobody attaches a "according to my opinion" on the front of every single positive statement they make, yet anyone could be wrong about anything.
 
recalcitrant said:
I liked apatheism but internet muslims and putting-god-before-yourself thinking changed all of that.
Click to expand...

So the behavior of humans would determine the level of your belief or non-belief in a god?

Not that that would be entirely unprecedented either...

On a separate note, I would have liked there to be multiple poll options. I think I would have fit more than one depending on the circumstances.
 
Cardinal said:
So the behavior of humans would determine the level of your belief or non-belief in a god?

Not that that would be entirely unprecedented either...
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that make sense? I'd like to be an apatheist, embracing live-and-let-live and ignoring what everyone else does. However, religious extremism effects us all and it's ultimately irresponsible not to condemn it. The fanatics prevent us from completely turning a blind eye to what they're doing.
 
Cardinal said:
So the behavior of humans would determine the level of your belief or non-belief in a god?
Click to expand...

Apatheism is an attitude juxtapose to either positive and negative athesim, may exist in both ends of the spectrum. But yes, the behavior of hue-mons can be a strong influence to reconsider things.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Wouldn't that make sense? I'd like to be an apatheist, embracing live-and-let-live and ignoring what everyone else does. However, religious extremism effects us all and it's ultimately irresponsible not to condemn it. The fanatics prevent us from completely turning a blind eye to what they're doing.
Click to expand...

Sort of. I don't care about chewing gum, but if you put a gun to my head and demanded a "like" or "dislike" answer, I'd be forced to say that I dislike chewing gum. But when you put the gun to my head, that didn't really change how much I liked or disliked it, it just forced to me to vocalize a position.
 
Cardinal said:
Sort of. I don't care about chewing gum, but if you put a gun to my head and demanded a "like" or "dislike" answer, I'd be forced to say that I dislike chewing gum. But when you put the gun to my head, that didn't really change how much I liked or disliked it, it just forced to me to vocalize a position.
Click to expand...

How about if you liked or didn't mind chewing gum, but because every day you read in the paper about human beings being blown to smithereens because of chewing gum fanatics, wouldn't it start to tip you towards a more negative opinion of chewing gum?
 
recalcitrant said:
Apatheism is an attitude juxtapose to either positive and negative athesim, may exist in both ends of the spectrum. But yes, the behavior of hue-mons can be a strong influence to reconsider things.
Click to expand...

Well it shouldn't. People behaving badly in topics like this shouldn't have an impact on whether things can be observed to factually exist or not. Now if the question were, "Does religion have a positive impact on people," then yes, obviously human behavior can be factored in.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
How about if you liked or didn't mind chewing gum, but because every day you read in the paper about human beings being blown to smithereens because of chewing gum fanatics, wouldn't it start to tip you towards a more negative opinion of chewing gum?
Click to expand...

Since I can observe for myself that the chewing gum isn't propelling me to commit acts of murder or bigotry, it would tip me toward a more negative opinion of people.

I see this analogy getting hopelessly confusing within the next two posts.
 
Cardinal said:
Since I can observe for myself that the chewing gum isn't propelling me to commit acts of murder or bigotry, it would tip me toward a more negative opinion of people.

I see this analogy getting hopelessly confusing within the next two posts.
Click to expand...

I guess the primary difference is that the chewing gum manufacturers don't actively incite violence. I've yet to see a pack of Big Red that has suggested I bash a homosexual's head in with a rock.
 
Last edited:
I'm more familiar with these definitions.


gnostic atheist - I know for certain that there are no gods.

agnostic atheist - I do not know for certain, but I think there are no gods.

agnostic - I am someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God or gods
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
Well it shouldn't. People behaving badly in topics like this shouldn't have an impact on whether things can be observed to factually exist or not.
Click to expand...

I don't see what the problem is with someone being influenced to read up on and trial religion and god's existent, based on people's crappy handling of the topic.
 
recalcitrant said:
I don't see what the problem is with someone being influenced to read up on and trial religion and god's existent, based on people's crappy handling of the topic.
Click to expand...

Because ultimately that's no different than discrediting atheism on the basis of Stalin murdering a gazillion people.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I guess the primary difference is that the chewing gum manufacturers don't actively incite violence. I've yet to see a pack of Big Red that has suggested I bash a homosexual's head in with a rock.
Click to expand...

Okay...one post. I think the chewing gum analogy has outlived its usefulness.
 
Tuatara said:
agnostic - I am someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God or gods
Click to expand...

That's a ridiculous statement though, you cannot neither believe nor disbelieve something. Belief is binary. If you do not believe, then by default you disbelieve, if you believe, then by default you cannot disbelieve.
 
Cardinal said:
Because ultimately that's no different than discrediting atheism on the basis of Stalin murdering a gazillion people.
Click to expand...

Which had nothing whatsoever to do with atheism, Stalin never said that his atheism had a thing to do with his actions, that was his politics. Hitler, however, was very, very clear that his Christianity was the direct cause of his actions against the Jews.
 
This distinction serves primarily to discredit atheism as a movement for public policy. Those vocal atheists are so silly, they talk about facts and reason and science, but they say that god definitely doesn't exist, but they can't prove it. They should just be quiet like the other respectful atheists. After all, if you can't prove it, any position on the subject is equally viable, right?

Asserting the non-existence of a god is the same as asserting the non-existence of Harry Potter or the Loch Ness Monster. These things are supposed to exist within specific parameters. We looked. They're not there. Loch Ness is empty. There is no Hogwarts. There are no gods on top of Mt. Olympus. Are we absolutely, 100% certain that Zeus doesn't exist? No. But we went up Mt. Olympus and he wasn't there. So we're as certain as we need to be to construct a society that assumes his non-existence. The distinction is mostly a distraction to discredit atheist movements. Otherwise it's just a semantic difference for armchair philosophers.
 
Yes, we know you're an atheist, but are you a Catholic atheist or a Protestant atheist?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom