Isn’t Atheism a faith-based non-religion?

[ArtieE]

I understood it but I don't agree with it. I find categories like "weak" and "strong" atheist too subjective, rather arbitrary really.

Thank you. Whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant. The important thing is that these are the categories in use and that you understand the difference and interact properly with the people who use them.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Thank you. Whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant. The important thing is that these are the categories in use and that you understand the difference and interact properly with the people who use them.

I generally form a view of where people fit on the theist/atheist spectrum, based on what they say. I interact as seems appropriate, not based on arbitrary categories which are not universally agreed.

So how do you see yourself, weak or strong atheist?

 

[ArtieE]

I generally form a view of where people fit on the theist/atheist spectrum, based on what they say. I'm not that interested in arbitrary categories though.

When a person says he's a weak or strong atheist you know approximately where he fits on your spectrum and can go on from there. For example, don't try to ask a person identifying himself as a weak atheist why he believes gods don't exist. You might think the categories are arbitrary, but he might get a low opinion of your intelligence.

 

[ArtieE]

I generally form a view of where people fit on the theist/atheist spectrum, based on what they say. I interact as seems appropriate, not based on arbitrary categories which are not universally agreed.

So how do you see yourself, weak or strong atheist?

This is your scale.

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

http://bigthink.com/think-tank/atheism-easter-atheister

On your scale I'm number 5. Weak atheist. But such designations are just arbitrary you know...

 

[Augustus]

Putting it in proper case like that would mean discussing atheism as religion for the subset of atheists that applies to. Essentially a religious conviction that there are no gods, along with a set of other ideas that can be simplistically characterized as materialistic scientism. Behaviorally, there are parallels to Evangelical Christians in that such folks can be well... basically atheist versions of corner-side preachers.

I don't really get why lots of atheists seem to get a bit huffy if you use the term Atheist/New Atheist/Evangelical Atheist to refer to a clearly identifiable group of people with a clearly identifiable ideology and have a habit of arguing that these phrases are totally meaningless while, at the same time, being perfectly well aware of the people/ideology you are referring to.

It's as if words may only exist in a monadic vacuum without any actual context or connection to experience.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I don't really get why lots of atheists seem to get a bit huffy if you use the term Atheist/New Atheist/Evangelical Atheist to refer to a clearly identifiable group of people with a clearly identifiable ideology and have a habit of arguing that these phrases are totally meaningless while, at the same time, being perfectly well aware of the people/ideology you are referring to.

It's as if words may only exist in a monadic vacuum without any actual context or connection to experience.

Because they dont belong to these groups and feel the term atheist has been misappropriated?

 

[Augustus]

Because they dont belong to these groups and feel the term atheist has been misappropriated?

And many Muslims don't like the term the Islamic State. We need words to describe things though.

What other words would be better for conveying the intended meaning? Some people proposed calling themselves "Brights", but this never caught on for some unknown reason...

 

[Rick O'Shez]

This is your scale.

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

http://bigthink.com/think-tank/atheism-easter-atheister

On your scale I'm number 5. Weak atheist. But such designations are just arbitrary you know...

I fluctuate between 5 and 6.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

And many Muslims don't like the term the Islamic State. We need words to describe things though.

What other words would be better for conveying the intended meaning? Some people proposed calling themselves "Brights", but this never caught on for some unknown reason...

My answer would apply equally to those non-Islamic State Muslims too, I'm sure. Call them whatever you like, but I'm pretty sure you do see (even if you dont agree) how someone who self-identifies as an atheist may get 'a little huffy' when people start using the term 'atheist' as if it identifies a set of beliefs.

At least the Muslims have some commonality in terms of their holy scripture.
If it helps, the same atheist who gets a little huffy at theists misappropriating the term atheist is likely to get MORE huffy at their 'fellow' atheists doing the same. I like the term 'Brights' actually. Giving people a way to self identify as having their heads stick up their butts makes my life easier.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't really get why lots of atheists seem to get a bit huffy if you use the term Atheist/New Atheist/Evangelical Atheist to refer to a clearly identifiable group of people with a clearly identifiable ideology and have a habit of arguing that these phrases are totally meaningless while, at the same time, being perfectly well aware of the people/ideology you are referring to.

For one thing, it is misleading to talk of "New Atheism", and that is not the only misrepresentation around.

For another, what ideology are you talking about? I sure have no idea.

It's as if words may only exist in a monadic vacuum without any actual context or connection to experience.

Nah. It is just that misrepresentation is a thing and we should not condone it.

 

[LuisDantas]

And many Muslims don't like the term the Islamic State. We need words to describe things though.

And we should strive not to abuse them.

What other words would be better for conveying the intended meaning? Some people proposed calling themselves "Brights", but this never caught on for some unknown reason...

You tell me. What is the intended meaning? is it supposed to be truthful?

 

[Augustus]

My answer would apply equally to those non-Islamic State Muslims too, I'm sure. Call them whatever you like, but I'm pretty sure you do see (even if you dont agree) how someone who self-identifies as an atheist may get 'a little huffy' when people start using the term 'atheist' as if it identifies a set of beliefs.

At least the Muslims have some commonality in terms of their holy scripture.
If it helps, the same atheist who gets a little huffy at theists misappropriating the term atheist is likely to get MORE huffy at their 'fellow' atheists doing the same. I like the term 'Brights' actually. Giving people a way to self identify as having their heads stick up their butts makes my life easier.

If that was what was happening then it's understandable, but it is not what was happening.

The terms make a distinction between atheism as a simple belief and Atheism/New Atheism etc. as an ideology.

The user is acknowledging the difference, rather than repeating the mistake of seeing atheism as an ideology.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yeah...only the clarity of the distinction is not always apparent to all parties. It doesnt worry me too much in truth, but its a mild annoyance.

Even in your well-stated example, using atheism and Atheism as the distinction borders on asanine.

Complete this sentence...

Atheism is ________

 

[Quintessence]

The terms make a distinction between atheism as a simple belief and Atheism/New Atheism etc. as an ideology.

The user is acknowledging the difference, rather than repeating the mistake of seeing atheism as an ideology.

Yup, that's what I aim to do. Still get jumped on for it. Oh well.

Sometimes I might use the term "scientism" instead, as it is typically a centerpiece of the ideological/religious variety (the if "science" doesn't say so, it is rubbish mentality). But folks don't identify as adherents of scientism, they identify as atheists, so it seems more respectful to maintain the label they use for themselves. Is this wrong?

 

[Quintessence]

Complete this sentence...

Atheism is ________

The meaning becomes clear by context. The same issue happens with the word Paganism, where I also don't use "paganism" and "Paganism" to mean the same thing. A good communicator will practice active listening and ask for clarification where necessary. Problem is, many people are poor communicators and don't do this (or they just don't care or are unaware of linguistic nuances).

For me, I nearly always mean Paganism-as-religion when I talk about it. When I talk about atheism, I only occasionally take that usage (though in part because people around here freak out about it if I do and it's just not worth those arguments).

 

[Unveiled Artist]

No. I am explaining to you that if I put the term atheism in proper case, I'm referring to it as a religion. I follow the same convention with the word "paganism," where by in lower case I am not referring to religious practices and in proper case I am. It is grammatical convention to put religions in proper case.



It isn't. A conviction needs to be deeply held for me to call it "religious." Or, as @Windwalker puts it, something of ultimate concern for that person... something that is an anchor or axis of their worldview or way of life. One can be "religious" about sports fandoms, taking care of one's children, etc.



I'm not one of them. I simply find the word accurate to use in at least some cases. Atheists who are particularly devoted to their atheism and make it a big deal in their life are certainly religious about their atheism. If atheists are disturbed by being called religious, I'd suggest they might re-examine what the word "religious" means and why they respond to it so negatively. "Religious" is not a dirty word. Or at least it shouldn't be.



No, it does not, and I didn't say that it did. But it does make one religious about that thing. Religious =/= religion. Granted, the things one is religious about are typically the underpinnings of one's religion.



What? How on earth did you get that from what I said? I don't think that at all!



Frankly, I could not tell you what "live like a theist" or "live like an atheist" even looks like. That sounds like nonsense. "Live like a Catholic" or "live like a geologist or "live like a gamer" are things that compute.

Quien. I kinda know you're a bit more observant and open minded than this post suggest; so, I'd like to interject and ask you a couple of things.

I'm an atheist. I am opposite of a theist. I do not believe in deities.

The word God(s) just means an object, person, or idea (put the -s there. It's harming to my eyes to use a lot of parenthesis in one sentence.

People who usually call themselves atheist usually do not believe in deities not gods. Unless you believe in a deit(s), I kinda don't understand you define atheist.

My first question: How do you define atheist?

A conviction needs to be deeply held for me to call it "religious." "Or, as @Windwalker puts it, something of ultimate concern for that person..."

There are many atheist like myself that do not have convictions to be called religious. That may be in your personal definition; however, "conviction" and those similar words are usually used in monotheistic religions. For example, if one person "wronged" their god, they feel guilt/convicted and the need for repentance. It's in most monotheistic faiths if you take out Jesus Christ and just say creator.

In a religious point of view, what does an atheist have to be convicted of to be considered, in your and Windwalkers terms, religious?

I am very religious but I got out of the Church one of many reasons is that they feel you have to be convicted (hence go to confession) to receive Christ. Not everyone needs to feel convicted to be religious.

Question: Why do you feel conviction has to relate to being religious as a whole?

If atheists are disturbed by being called religious, I'd suggest they might re-examine what the word "religious" means and why they respond to it so negatively. "Religious" is not a dirty word. Or at least it shouldn't be.

I agree with @Valjean on this one. I think you're talking about small sect of atheist that doesn't represent all atheists as a whole. It is similar if not actually what monotheist categorizing all generalizing what all polytheists believe because they read in their book, watch t.v., or read online (whatever) that X amount of polytheist do these things so all of them do. It happens in the LGBT community too. What you see is what everyone should be.

Many (not all) atheists who respond to religion and religious negatively, I have noticed slowly, are those coming from monotheistic faiths. In RF, it's mainly Christianity or Catholicism. I never heard of the meaning behind the word religion growing up. Religion before I came to the Church reminds me of different traditions and practices I am not accustomed to, but I haven't looked at them negatively. When I went into the Church, I saw that my open-mindedness conflicted with how the Church sees things. Then coming from the Church, I can see why some atheists have an issue with the word religious. To many, it's not how you and I would describe it.

Many times on here, they have defined religion as something that restricts them, limits them from freedom of thought, and basically oppressed them.

Instead of addressing how atheists see the word religion, since they have different definitions than you....

Question: Is it possible to see it from a suffering atheists perspective?

I could only have done that after I came from the Church. Before the Church, I had really no opinion about people who don't believe in deities because I never believed deities.

This question, of course, depends on if you believe in deities (not god(s)).

Ima challenge your thought process for a sec...

Frankly, I could not tell you what "live like a theist" or "live like an atheist" even looks like. That sounds like nonsense. "Live like a Catholic" or "live like a geologist or "live like a gamer" are things that compute.

Question: If you don't understand what "live like an atheist" means (if there is such a phrase that exists), how can you have an opinion of how atheist sees religion?

There was one RF member that said something to the affect, when I said what h/h said was negative, the member said, no it's not negative it's fact and telling it how it is. It's more telling you the facts like someone coming up to you beatened by his wife and he gives you the facts and you say "don't look at it negatively. The wife has a point." Many atheists look at religion negatively because they associate it with the religion(s) they may have been indoctrinated/beatened up with.

Instead of saying they are negative, maybe understand why they say what they say from their perspective rather than their own.

I did that with one JW here when h/h was talking against the LGBT community. The member actually believes that we, the LGBT community are born with the inherit sin to act homosexual. While straight people can choose who they want to act with but don't have that same inherit "gene." Yet, I understood what h/h meant and now I know why h/h thinks the way that member does because of it. So the conversation ended. For me with mutual understanding. I don't know about h/h.

Also (note) "Live like a Catholic" just means live Christ like. If you're read the Bible and what Christ taught, see it from the Christians view. The Christian is trying to act like Christ or live like him. In the Catholic point of view, live in accordance with the Church is living in accordance with Christ. So living like a Catholic is being part of the Church, acting in part, and believing the part.

I never heard of "live like an atheist" before. There are sooo many theists that to say what is opposite of an atheist in regards to practices is, well, ridiculous. However, I'd have to talk to the person who said it.

Question: Where do you get your source of what atheists believe compare to what you read on RF, see on T.V., movies, and talk to X amount of people in person?

Question: Doesn't that make you contradict, for nicer terms, how you don't like what monotheist and how monotheist define and see polytheist?

Question: Would you like the monotheist to get to know you (remembering a very old thread years back you said) first before defining you by a word or phrase?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

'atheist', has to imply that one does not believe in deities. The reason, is that ''theist'', does not necessarily mean anything besides the position that deities do or might exist. This is what the words have come to mean in usage. Anything else is contextual. ''Atheism'', can't merely mean that one does not have a belief regarding deity or deities.
//ie as such atheism is defined by theism, a-theism

Atheist means not-theist.

Atheism means a rejection of theism, and as such is also a view. ( thanks to @Willamena )

 

[Willamena]

Thank you. Whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant. The important thing is that these are the categories in use and that you understand the difference and interact properly with the people who use them.

So... Word Nazis.

 

[Willamena]

I fluctuate between 5 and 6.

Really, it's just a list of two categories. Anything less than a 7 is just an admission that one doesn't know what theists are talking about.

 

[Acim]

Regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

Which fits for atheism.

No it doesn't.

Yes it does.

Atheism is not accepting the idea that there are gods in existence. Weak atheists are not accepting the idea that there are no gods in existence either. They're on the fence. Strong atheists do accept the idea that there are no gods in existence.

Hence, the faith proposition. It is regardless of any evidence to the contrary. Has zero to do with evidence.