three types of atheist????

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, the second is agnostic

And the first one is in a sense a gnostic.

 

[Zwing]

Yes, the second is agnostic

I am the second type, but call myself “atheist” since I am “without God”. The first type I call “antitheist”, e.g. Chris Hitchens.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am the second type, but call myself “atheist” since I am “without God”. The first type I call “antitheist”, e.g. Chris Hitchens.

Well, I am also an agnostic, but not an atheist.

 

[blü 2]

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)

It seems to me that all such people could reasonably be called Atheists

Yet they are entirely different things

So, does this mean there are three types of Atheists?

Or does this mean that our language is out of touch with reality?

I'd say there are various kinds of unbelievers, anyway. It's often said there's a belief scale of, with YES!!! at one end, Gee, ah, hmm, in the middle and NO!!! at the other end.

Of course there can be imaginary gods, as many and of as many kinds as you might fancy.

However, my own view is that the scale I mentioned would be meaningless unless we were talking about a real god, one who could be found in the world external to the self, and not just in your private imagination.

And yet, as you know, gods are only found as concepts, ideas, things imagined, in an individual brain. God never says or does ─ humans do all the saying and doing. God never appears so there are no photos, videos, interviews or police descriptions ─ height, hair color, number of limbs, digits, eyes, requirements for nourishment, nope, none of that.

More convincingly still, God is only described in imaginary terms ─ omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, perfect, eternal, infinite and the like.

So I conclude the concept of 'real God' is incoherent, and so the question of whether an incoherently defined god exists as an independent entity out there in reality is itself incoherent. That makes me an igtheist.

 

[Kenny]

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)

It seems to me that all such people could reasonably be called Atheists

Yet they are entirely different things

So, does this mean there are three types of Atheists?

Or does this mean that our language is out of touch with reality?

Of course, I would say that they are out of touch with reality.

 

[ChristineM]

I am the second type, but call myself “atheist” since I am “without God”. The first type I call “antitheist”, e.g. Chris Hitchens.

The difference between dis believing and not knowing is the difference between atheist and agnostic

 

[Zwing]

The difference between dis believing and not knowing is the difference between atheist and agnostic

But the thing is I know enough to make a judgment that no gods seem to exist, I just don’t know enough to state emphatically that they absolutely do not. Can you see the distinction? If you call me an agnostic, then what term remains for the person who feels that they do not know enough or have enough evidence to even make a judgment? That stance is what I call “agnostic”, and my own stance “atheist”.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Of course, I would say that they are out of touch with reality.

Well, right back at you.

 

[ChristineM]

But the thing is I know enough to make a judgment that no gods seem to exist, I just don’t know enough to state emphatically that they absolutely do not. Can you see the distinction? If you call me an agnostic, then what term remains for the person who feels that they do not know enough or have enough evidence to even make a judgment? That stance is what I call “agnostic”, and my own stance “atheist”.

Your choice so fair enough.

 

[viole]

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)

It seems to me that all such people could reasonably be called Atheists

Yet they are entirely different things

So, does this mean there are three types of Atheists?

Or does this mean that our language is out of touch with reality?

In my case I can use only comparisons.

I disbelieve in God as much as the average person disbelieves in Mother Goose. So, whatever category that person chooses, that would be mine, too.

so, I return this to the sender. What category would you choose for yourself, as a A-MotherGooist, if you are one? your answer is my answer

ciao

- viole

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is a difference between affirmatively stating that “there is no god which exists”, and stating that “I have no evidence for the existence of any god, but it might be possible that a god could exist”. Do you see the distinction?

Both are atheists: the number of gods they believe in is zero.

Both hold beliefs that are compatible with atheism but not requirements to be an atheist.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Both are atheists: the number of gods they believe in is zero.

Both hold beliefs that are compatible with atheism but not requirements to be an atheist.

Atheist don't actively believe. Atheism is the lack of belief.

 

[Zwing]

Both are atheists: the number of gods they believe in is zero.

I call the first position, that “there is no God which exists” the antitheist position. Basically, I maintain the term atheist for the position that “if the unevident supernatural does occur then a god might exist, even so there are sufficient bases to conclude that one should not believe that a god does exist”. By so doing, I reserve the term agnostic for the position that “I do not even have sufficient basis to determine whether or not I should have any type of belief in the existence of deity” (in essence, like Sergeant Schultz from Hogan’s Heroes, “I know nothing”).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I call the first position, that “there is no God which exists” the antitheist position. Basically, I maintain the term atheist for the position that “if the unevident supernatural does occur then a god might exist, even so there are sufficient bases to conclude that one should not believe that a god does exist”. By so doing, I reserve the term agnostic for the position that “I do not even have sufficient basis to determine whether or not I should have any type of belief in the existence of deity” (in essence, like Sergeant Schultz, “I know nothing”).

That is still a norm for the bold and not a fact, as it is without evidence as per the normal standard for evidence.

 

[Zwing]

That… is without evidence as per the normal standard for evidence.

It is based not upon evidence, but upon a rational principle…that which states that one should only accept the truth of a proposition upon the basis of appropriate evidence. What is being evaluated in the first place is the proposition that “there is a God which exists”.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is based not upon evidence, but upon a rational principle…that which states that one should only accept the truth of a proposition upon the basis of appropriate evidence. What is being evaluated in the first place is the proposition that “there is a God which exists”.

Which is without evidence. You have in effect made a variant of the following problem. Only truth as objective matters, but that it matters, is not objective.
Remember I am a general skeptic.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I call the first position, that “there is no God which exists” the antitheist position.

Sure. Antitheists are one subset of atheists.

Basically, I maintain the term atheist for the position that “if the unevident supernatural does occur then a god might exist, even so there are sufficient bases to conclude that one should not believe that a god does exist”.

Heh... I'm not sure I even parse that position, but I disagree with the idea that being an atheist implies any particular stance on the supernatural, or whether a god would be supernatural, or that "natural/supernatural" is even a valid dichotomy.

By so doing, I reserve the term agnostic for the position that “I do not even have sufficient basis to determine whether or not I should have any type of belief in the existence of deity” (in essence, like Sergeant Schultz from Hogan’s Heroes, “I know nothing”).

I put it slightly differently: agnostics are those who hold the position that the question of whether gods exist can't be answered.

Agnosticism certainly isn't "I know nothing"; it's "I know the answer to a meta-claim about gods."

Whether an agnostic is an atheist depends whether they believe in any gods.

 

[RestlessSoul]

It is based not upon evidence, but upon a rational principle…that which states that one should only accept the truth of a proposition upon the basis of appropriate evidence. What is being evaluated in the first place is the proposition that “there is a God which exists”.

However you choose to evaluate that proposition, has no bearing on it’s veracity. God either is, or God is not, rational principles notwithstanding.

 

[Revoltingest]

In my discussions with fundies (IRL) I notice something common.
They use a restricted definition of "atheism", ie, "There is no God".
They even read "disbelieve" to mean denying the existence of it.
They don't acknowledge the spectrum of strong to weak atheism.
Why?
I speculate that weak atheism (simply not believing) dismisses
their belief, but cannot be easily argued against. Strong atheism
is a more attractive target.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In my discussions with fundies (IRL) I notice something common.
They use a restricted definition of "atheism", ie, "There is no God".
They even read "disbelieve" to mean denying the existence of it.
They don't acknowledge the spectrum of strong to weak atheism.
Why?
I speculate that weak atheism (simply not believing) is dismisses
their belief, but cannot be easily argued against. "Atheism" is
a more attractive target.

Just as all religion can be treated as dogmatic fundamentalistic theists. It works both ways.