three types of atheist????

[Eddi]

A New Yorker will differentiate from a non New Yorker as religious differentiate from non religious
And maybe even pigeon hole them as you are attempting to do with atheism

Look at it this way....

Imagine you are creating an online dating app in which users need to fill in a profile so that they can be matched up with other users.....

A dating profile cannot contain everything about each user it would just feature certain highlights of its users identity

It may very well ask "home town". "occupation", "sexuality", or "religion" - as well as things such as smoker status or whether or not you drink

These would be relevant to matching people up

I'm pretty sure that one's "been to New York City status" would not feature on user profiles if you were in charge of such a dating service???

"I only date people who haven't been to New York!"

My point is this: One's religion is an important dimension of one's identity and personhood whether you believe in God, Gods, or no Gods

That's how society works

And that some dimensions are more relevant than others

For instance when it comes to online dating one's preference when it comes to dogs vs. cats is perhaps less important than one's smoker status but more important than whether you prefer to use pens with blue ink or black ink....

That's simply the way things work

Maybe you'd disagree with this example but I hope you'll take my point that for any given purpose some personal characteristics are more important than others

For instance, one's medical records lists height, weight, blood type and sex - it does not feature your favourite music, your favourite films, or your favourite food as that would be irrelevant for medical purposes

Although granted, to return to the dating app, if there was something in your life that's very important to you then you could always mention it in some kind of self description field

 

[ChristineM]

Look at it this way....

Imagine you are creating an online dating app in which users need to fill in a profile so that they can be matched up with other users.....

A dating profile cannot contain everything about each user it would just feature certain highlights of its users identity

It may very well ask "home town". "occupation", "sexuality", or "religion" - as well as things such as smoker status or whether or not you drink

These would be relevant to matching people up

I'm pretty sure that one's "been to New York City status" would not feature on user profiles if you were in charge of such a dating service???

"I only date people who haven't been to New York!"

My point is this: One's religion is an important dimension of one's identity and personhood whether you believe in God, Gods, or no Gods

That's how society works

And that some dimensions are more relevant than others

For instance when it comes to online dating one's preference when it comes to dogs vs. cats is perhaps less important than one's smoker status but more important than whether you prefer to use pens with blue ink or black ink....

That's simply the way things work

Maybe you'd disagree with this example but I hope you'll take my point that for any given purpose some personal characteristics are more important than others

For instance, one's medical records lists height, weight, blood type and sex - it does not feature your favourite music, your favourite films, or your favourite food as that would be irrelevant for medical purposes

Although granted, to return to the dating app, if there was something in your life that's very important to you then you could always mention it in some kind of self description field

TLR all.

A persons home town and travels are most important to identity.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

TLR all.

A persons home town and travels are most important to identity.

To you. To me it is what they have done and learned as such.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes

Because believing or not believing in God is socially and culturally different to having gone or not gone to New York City

So... you can handle having one word that applies to three types of American, but for social and cultural reasons (what reasons, BTW?), you can't handle having the word "atheist" apply to all three of your rather arbitrary "types" of atheist?

And BTW: as I mentored earlier, your "types of atheist" aren't even types of atheist. You've described 3 possible attitudes toward a specific god. Because there are uncountably many gods to accept, reject, be unconvinced by, or be unaware of, most atheists will take each of those attitudes to at least some gods.

 

[Eddi]

A persons home town and travels are most important to identity.

When it comes to what purposes?

When it comes to looking for love online? - maybe

When it comes to your medical records? - not at all

What is important and what isn't depends on the context

So although your claim may be true in some circumstances it isn't in others

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So... you can handle having one word that applies to three types of American, but for social and cultural reasons (what reasons, BTW?), you can't handle having the word "atheist" apply to all three of your rather arbitrary "types" of atheist?

And BTW: as I mentored earlier, your "types of atheist" aren't even types of atheist. You've described 3 possible attitudes toward a specific god. Because there are uncountably many gods to accept, reject, be unconvinced by, or be unaware of, most atheists will take each of those attitudes to at least some gods.

Yeah, but there is the general concept of gods. So do you accept the concept of gods to be with evidence or without evidence or unknown?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When it comes to what purposes?

When it comes to looking for love online? - maybe

When it comes to your medical records? - not at all

What is important and what isn't depends on the context

So although your claim may be true in some circumstances it isn't in others

And when you're looking for love online, or a doctor is looking at your medical records, you think it's very important that we be able to distingush between atheists who have never heard of God, atheists who aren't convinced but don't necessarily reject God, and atheists who have decided that God does not exist?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And when you're looking for love online, or a doctor is looking at your medical records, you think it's very important that we be able to distingush between atheists who have never heard of God, atheists who aren't convinced but don't necessarily reject God, and atheists who have decided that God does not exist?

Well, if look for a partner, that would be important, as it is one clue to their culture and cognition.

 

[Eddi]

And when you're looking for love online, or a doctor is looking at your medical records, you think it's very important that we be able to distingush between atheists who have never heard of God, atheists who aren't convinced but don't necessarily reject God, and atheists who have decided that God does not exist?

No, because in those situations the fact of one's non-belief is more pertinent than the reason behind it

"Atheist" is the identity

The rest is just details - for general purposes

But when discussing Atheism and Atheists it is possible and interresting to differentiate between different ways of having arrived at being an Atheist

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, because in those situations the fact of one's non-belief is more pertinent than the reason behind it

"Atheist" is the identity

It's one descriptor.

The rest is just details - for general purposes

But when discussing Atheism and Atheists it is possible and interresting to differentiate between different ways of having arrived at being an Atheist

Sure, just as it's possible to differentiate between non-smokers who:

- have never had the opportunity to smoke
- could smoke, choose not to, but are fine with other people smoking
- are rabidly anti-tobacco
- used to smoke and would love to keep doing it, but can't because of emphysema or whatnot.

... but they're all still non-smokers.

Same with atheists. As long as theism is a significant thing, simply differentiating "members of the god club" vs. non-members is something that will matter.

 

[ChristineM]

When it comes to what purposes?

When it comes to looking for love online? - maybe

When it comes to your medical records? - not at all

What is important and what isn't depends on the context

So although your claim may be true in some circumstances it isn't in others

You are the one who introduced online dating.

Yes my claim is true, an atheist is someone who disbelieves gods. How they get there is not atheism but a pathway to a result.

What i notice about this thread is that atheists (i.e. those with experience) all seem to be telling you the same thing.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's one descriptor.
...

Yes and it is close to been meaningless in practice. Just like the fact that my wife is a Christian. That is as just as close to meaningless as you being an atheist and I being a philosophical idealist without being a theist or even standard deist.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are the one who introduced online dating.

Yes my claim is true, an atheist is someone who disbelieves gods. How they get there is not atheism but a pathway to a result.

What i notice about this thread is that atheists (i.e. those with experience) all seem to be telling you the same thing.

No, there is more than one definition of an atheist.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Is there a difference between:

• A person who doesn't believe in God as they have never heard of God and don't know who/what God is supposed to be (so has nothing to do with religion)
• A person who sees no reason to believe in God and who finds arguments for God to be unconvincing (so has nothing to do with religion)
• A person who is positively convinced that there is no God (so has nothing to do with religion)

For the benefit of splitters everywhere, you left out a few categories of things lacking a god belief:

A person whose mind is too immature to conceive of a god yet, like a baby.
A conscious living entity not ever capable of conceiving of a god, like a rabbit.\
An unconscious living entity like a tree.
A non-living entity, like a rock.
[/sarcasm]

A definition of atheist that excludes my additions is, "Anyone who answers 'No' to the question of whether he holds a god belief."

I want to comment on the Oxford definition and its redundancy: "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."

Disbelief in gods (gnostic atheism) is a subset of lack of belief in gods (atheism), and "God" is a subset of gods, so, the words 'a person who lacks a belief in gods' say the same thing as that longer definition in fewer words.

 

[Nimos]

I think that “agnostic” pertains to both situations; agnosticism is uncertainty about either the existence or the demonstrability of deity. Greek ἄγνωστος meant either unknown or unknowable depending upon context.

I don't think it does. If you have no knowledge of the concept of God(s), then you can't be agnostic about it. Also, agnosticism in my opinion is arguably more of a religious position rather than an atheistic one, as it is assumed that nothing can be known about God(s). That is not really the default position of an atheist, which is that there is no God(s) until proven. Therefore it is kind of irrelevant or pointless for an atheist to take the position that nothing can be known about something which they don't think exists in the first place.

In my opinion, 1) is neither atheism nor agnosticism, because no knowledge has been assumed to be had. Meaning the person in question is unaware of the very idea of God(s).

 

[Zwing]

If you have no knowledge of the concept of God(s), then you can't be agnostic about it.

On second thought , I think you’re right. Don’t know what to call that, though.

 

[Nimos]

On second thought , I think you’re right. Don’t know what to call that, though.

Nothing, one is simply unaware

Just like we don't have names for other stuff for which we have no knowledge.

 

[Eddi]

What i notice about this thread is that atheists (i.e. those with experience) all seem to be telling you the same thing.

I was an Atheist between childhood and the age of twenty one so I have experience of being an Atheist......

Rejecting a typology such as that which I presented does not change the fact that there are multiple ways by which an individual may become that which we call "Atheist"

I'm seeing a lot of denial going on, I wouldn't have imagined that the simple notion that there are different reasons for not believing in God (or Gods) would be so controversial

Obviously there are different reasons for not having a belief in God - or Gods

That's what I'm claiming

To deny this is to deny reality

And I see nothing wrong in creating a rudimentary system of ideal types to help better conceptualise this

 

[ChristineM]

there are multiple ways by which an individual may become that which we call "Atheist"

Precisely. Different ways of becoming an atheist,​

​

Not different types of atheist as you stated in the OP​

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

On second thought , I think you’re right. Don’t know what to call that, though.

Someone who thinks that claims for the existence of god can't be evaluated as true or false because the term "god" is incoherent is an ignostic.

(Which would still fall within atheism)