Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I stick with the root meaning.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
three types of atheist????
- Thread starter Eddi
- Start date
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, now just kill all other human and you can have it all to yourself and your freedom. Then you are the true and only I.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Im a born loser baby.Yeah, now just kill all other human and you can have it all to yourself and your freedom. Then you are the true and only I.
Might as well kill me.
;0]
Obviously not
They can be ordered into at least three types, as I demonstrated in the OP
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Obviously not
They can be ordered into at least three types, as I demonstrated in the OP
Then there is ignosticism. The skeptic in me like that one better in some sense than atheism.
Nope, they are all atheist as per the definition.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
There are 3 definitions in the OP, not one. To you there is only one. But that is to you.
Exaltist Ethan
Bridging the Gap Between Believers and Skeptics
I would say this is true agnosticism.
I would say this is agnostic atheism.
I would say this is gnostic atheism.
... similar, yet different.
Obviously not
They can be ordered into at least three types, as I demonstrated in the OP
But the three "types" are a bit ridiculous.
You can also categorize Americans into three types:
- Americans who have never been to New York City
- Americans who have visited New York City but never lived there
- Americans who have lived in New York City
Is your categorization any more meaningful than this one?
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
They could be but I don't think those definitions cover all possibilities. For a start, you only seem to be considering a singular god (and, based on the capitalisation, a specific one) when there are lots of distinct gods different people propose or believe in, including a number of multi-deity pantheons or non-exclusive gods. I'd suggest that is a function of the blinkered Judeo-Christian focus we can all be too easily guilty of in the developed world.
You're also assuming atheists can't have anything to do with religion when there are literally atheistic religions and even people who can be involved in a theistic religion despite not (or no longer) confidently believing.
If you're going to get in to the kind of distinctions your list does, I'd argue there are billions of types of atheist, based on all sorts of different characteristics, other beliefs or behaviours. Alternative, you could just say there is only one type of atheist, simply covering anyone who doesn't believe in any god or gods, regardless of any other characteristics they might have.
Of course, some people argue that definition is so minimal as to make it all but meaningless. And, albeit for very different reasons, I'd agree with them.
Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
Nothing more, nothing less.
You can make up any stories you like, it does not change the definition of atheist
And those in the OP are not definitions but short descriptions of routes to atheism
Yes
Because believing or not believing in God is socially and culturally different to having gone or not gone to New York City
Is it? Not to me it isn't
Type 1 is classic agnostic…they are “without knowledge”. Type 2 simply recognizes that he lacks any objective evidence for the existence of deity in particular and for the supernatural more generally, but also recognizes that he lacks evidence for the non-existence of God, as well. I call this type the “atheist”, because they are “without God” for lack of supporting evidence. Type 3 believes himself to possess evidence that gods, or God in particular, does not exist. This fellow I call the “antitheist”, since he will state affirmatively that God does not exist.
Belief a god is not an identity.
How about being a New Yorker? Millions of people identify with that. Though it wouldn't get you through customs without a passport just as belief or disbelief in a god wouldn't
It is, whether you like it or not
It is a social category
It is a basis of social differentiation
That can be observed simply by looking at these forums
But it won't get you through customs as a physical identity can.
And being a New Yorker is as much a social category, just ask any new yorker.
Belief in a god is a personal choice whether you like it or not
.
Alien826
No religious beliefs
I'd say there is one general description (lacks belief in god/s) that contains two major subdivisions ("Has thought about it" and "Hasn't thought about it").
Each of the subdivisions can also be divided into two. "Has thought about it" divides into "Sees no evidence for god/s" and "Is totally convinced there are no god/s and will spend hours on Internet forums explaining why believers are idiots (militant atheist)". "Hasn't thought about it" divides into "Never heard the concept (mostly young children in secular households)" and "Don't think it's important enough to be concerned with (sometimes called apatheists)".
There, I think that covers it.
Each of the subdivisions can also be divided into two. "Has thought about it" divides into "Sees no evidence for god/s" and "Is totally convinced there are no god/s and will spend hours on Internet forums explaining why believers are idiots (militant atheist)". "Hasn't thought about it" divides into "Never heard the concept (mostly young children in secular households)" and "Don't think it's important enough to be concerned with (sometimes called apatheists)".
There, I think that covers it.