'Atheist' v/s 'Non-believer'?
- Thread starter Melisande
- Start date
- Status
This is exactly what troubles me!
What I am trying to explain, though the words elude me, is the fact that when I say that I am a 'non-believer', I actually mean precisely that! I am not denouncing any God, because if I did I would acknowledge that same God also. I am simply saying that the whole 'God-concept' whichever it might be, is nil to me; that the whole idea of supernatural godly creations are ... I don't know a good word, (
how I hate to be at a loss for words) ...maybe void might be right. Please tell me.
Exactly!
There is nothing "negative" about atheism, and atheists who go about calling themselves "non-believers" in attempt to sound "softer" or "less confrontational" or "less radical" only make the problems of ignorance about and prejudice against atheists worse. They also make it sound like belief is the default. The fact is, all humans are born without beliefs. Beliefs are instilled in children by their families/cultures. Which is why the majority of believers (yeah, I know, not all, I said majority) believe something very close, if not identical to, what those who raised them believe.
Atheism doesn't mean I think I can prove there is no god. It doesn't mean I hate Christians. All it means is I don't hold to any theism. Period. Silly how many folks don't hold to any theism yet are loathe to refer to themselves as atheists.
Atheism is not a belief any more than my not believing there are invisible unicorns sipping mint tea on my front porch is a belief. Those who claims it's a belief don't understand what atheism is.
Last edited:
We're a cantankerous lot, ain't we?
I wouldn't have it any other way. Cantankerousness is next to godliness.
Hi, (Mr.) Devil (Sir). I agree with everything you say but would add that there are reasons other than philosophical for refusing the atheist label. If you own a business in a small American town and call yourself an atheist, your children will not only go hungry but will likely be ostracized. They'll suffer. I'd rather name my son 'Sue' than admit to atheism in a small town.
That approach, although practical, is a huge part of the problem. As long as bigots are shielded from the reality that most atheists are safe, friendly and moral people, the prejudice against atheists will continue. The bigots can maintain their belief that atheists are amoral and dangerous, because they are never shown otherwise by good, "out" atheists.
Those who refuse to be part of the solution remain part of the problem.
Last edited:
Hm. I don't exactly like confrontations, so I thought that maybe the source of my confusion might actually be my harmonising drive. On the other hand, I'm also a nitpicker (look at grammar posts), and I can talk any problem away, so that only the terms remain.
What I said upthread ("I keep joking that I'm an agnostic five days a week, and an atheist on Sunday") certainly points toward me choosing "agnostic" over "atheist" for its non-confrontationalism. But I wonder.
Certainly, my a-gnosticism is more expressed than my a-theism. In real life situation I tend to say things like "I'm an atheist, or maybe an agnostic. Not sure." And yet I don't think the terms are mutually exclusive (see Fulk's post for details). Here's the thing:
I know I don't believe in "God". But, more than that, I think that the mysery inherent in the term is empty. Thus "God" is an inherently subjective term, impossible to objectivise or operationalise, and hard to communicate. If you don't get it, you don't get it. To me, whether God exists or not is not as important as the subjectivity I think is necessary to give the term meaning. Clearly, we can debate about borderline issues with all terms; but I think that terms like "God" (as well "soul", and some uses of "love") have an inherent emptiness to allow for subjective experience, and that it is easy to mistake that subjective content for the meaning of the term, when the term is deliberately vague enough to allow for the addition. So what's annoying to me is when others try to push their concepts on me, and it's even more annoying when they "punish" me for not getting it.
In simpler words: I'm not so concerned with whether God exists or not. What I'm concerned with is a theists claim that, assuming God exists, they know better than you what he/she/it wants. That they're willing to fill the emptiness in the term God with their own content doesn't entitle them to tell me what to do. So what I really take issue with is "Gnosis", the secret knowledge available to the in-crowd, not "God".
It's actually easier to resort to the term "atheist", because if you tell them that you don't believe in God, then they'll get that God's word doesn't hold much authority. Agnosticism leads to explanations that tend to bore both me and the believer. (And I'm actually more likely to use the term agnostic with people I know well than with strangers.)
Agnosticism is not, in the end, less confrontational. It's actually, if you take it seriously, more risky. You go from "God doesn't exist," to "You're claiming to have knowledge that you - if you're a human being - can't have." It's true that agnosticism, my brand at least, implies that I can no more know whether a God exists or not than you do. But that's only non-confrontational if you focus on what that says about me.
Luckily, most Believers don't turn the terms around when talking God. I'm the focus of attention, the deviation from the default. I'm the curiosity. And it's in the terms: "a-theist", "a-gnostic". All those things I should be buying but don't. (For a change, go around calling people "amaterialists" or "anaturalists". Should be fun.)
Yeah, I'm an agnostic. I admit that I have no priviledged knowledge that allows me to say whether or not a God exists. But, dear Mr. Believer, if you wrest that admission from me, I'll ask the same from you. You, too, have no priviledged knowledge that allows you tell whether a God exists or not. That is agnosticism to me.
I think most of us are trying to skate uphill here. It's not easy trying to provoke a positive spin on Atheism when politicians outright call Atheists Un-American.
There's a lingering stigma that won't disappear merely because we believe ourselves to be rational or logical or devoid of any religious associations, and it doesn't help matters much when census radicals still list "Atheist" as a religion in itself.
There's a lingering stigma that won't disappear merely because we believe ourselves to be rational or logical or devoid of any religious associations, and it doesn't help matters much when census radicals still list "Atheist" as a religion in itself.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2007
- Messages
- 1,940
- Reaction score
- 261
The issue then, though, is if someone asks "WHY do you have an absence of belief in God (however one defines that), gods, etc."
And they wouldn't mean some personal biographical story, akin to "Why I hate spinach and/or polka music" ... How someone was raised by a family of polka playing hypocrites who forced spinach on them until they were sixteen, then they rebelled, etc.
It is a sign of respect and open-mindedness for a Theist to ask an atheist "On what facts do you base your non-belief?"
But that respectful question asks for an answer, based upon fact or intelligent reasoning ... or else it's fair to say "Their atheism is merely their BELIEF" imo.
Belief (pro or con the existence of God, gods, etc) is fine and acceptable ... but should intelligently be recognized to be (and intelligently admitted to be) what it is: BELIEF.
imo
Another issue was raised in the first comment: whether atheism is 'anti-Christian' ... (I don't accept that it needs to be) ... But even suggesting that seems to invite an issue of cultural close-mindedness.
Does any commenter SEE their 'atheism' ONLY in terms of their own limited culture's bias?
One may be seen to reject "gods" and "religions" they are intelligently familiar with ... but how can one call oneself an 'atheist' against ALL definitions and understandings of God, gods, etc ... when no one can be familiar with them all?
If we see that even an 'atheists' non-belief is a belief, unless based upon fact ... and then understand that no one can possess ALL the possible facts concerning the existence of god, gods, etc ...
Isn't 'atheism' then revealed to be a conclusion arrived at prematurely? Lacking the facts?
To the extent that 'atheism' is a conclusion that CAN NEVER be supported ... other than by mere belief / faith?
I think those are fair issues to be addressed here.
Amadan
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2010
- Messages
- 8,649
- Reaction score
- 1,623
On what facts do you base your non-belief in Santa Claus? Unicorns? Bigfoot?
I don't need to individually analyze and reject each and every religion that anyone has ever imagined to intelligently conclude that belief in supernatural beings and a non-material world has no logical or factual foundation.
Your argument is just trying to set up infinitely-moving goal posts. "Well, how can you claim to be an intelligent, fact-based atheist when there might be Religion X somewhere in the world that you haven't investigated yet?"
If you don't want atheism to be thought of as a religion, it might help not to capitalize it. If anything, the capitalization of deities in English would suggest it's the t that should be capitalized.
But for those who seriously say atheism is a religion, do they call agnosticism a religion? Is there anyone whom they would say is not religious?
But yes, as far as skating uphill ... with the George H. W. Bush comment, and with polls showing atheists at the bottom just about any category of whom people would vote for for President, it's quite an advance that President Obama said this in his Inauguration speech:
But for those who seriously say atheism is a religion, do they call agnosticism a religion? Is there anyone whom they would say is not religious?
But yes, as far as skating uphill ... with the George H. W. Bush comment, and with polls showing atheists at the bottom just about any category of whom people would vote for for President, it's quite an advance that President Obama said this in his Inauguration speech:
To the extent that 'atheism' is a conclusion that CAN NEVER be supported ... other than by mere belief / faith?
Hmmmm the same argument can be used against people who don't believe in evolution. If a lack of belief is invalid because it can never be supported, then a lack of belief in evolution and that means a person must be a believer.
EVOLUTION WINS!
Hmmmm the same argument can be used against people who don't believe in evolution. If a lack of belief is invalid because it can never be supported, then a lack of belief in evolution and that means a person must be a believer.
EVOLUTION WINS!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2005
- Messages
- 5,011
- Reaction score
- 697
- Location
- Sacramento area, CA
- Website
- www.umbachconsulting.com
I sometimes have refered to myself as a "lapsed Baptist" (clarifying, American Baptist Convention, not Southern Baptist). These days, it might be "secular humanist," although depending on audience I might add, "the polite term for atheist." Sometimes, "nondogmatic atheist," as I don't feel the need to convert believers to my position -- other than to irritate pushy religionists occasionally by pointing out the absurdities of, say, biblical literalism. No one calls me anything in particular in that regard, though, as I do not seek to get into those discussions.
--Ken
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2005
- Messages
- 5,011
- Reaction score
- 697
- Location
- Sacramento area, CA
- Website
- www.umbachconsulting.com
I point to my No Soliciting sign. If that does not suffice, I give them my handout that includes statement that soliciting includes proselytizing for or in any other way representing any religion whatsoever. But the No Soliciting sign seems to keep them away. The occasional commercial soliciter, though, that is another story. Those people can be terminally dense. I give them a copy of the handout and close the door. Some are apparently unable to read, though.
--Ken
I have mixed feelings about this. People who know me well know I'm atheist, but I don't broadcast it. I don't like it when companies mix religion with their business (there's a furniture store a few towns over that's closed on Sundays, and it says something like, "I'll see you in church" on the sign - I'm not so drawn to purchasing furniture there). I don't see a need to spread my atheism any more than I want someone to spread their religious beliefs.
Although I don't personally value religion, I respect the importance it has in many peoples' lives. And I do believe that because people who are religious think it's true, and it gives them strength, it is True for them, just not for me. Hopefully that ugly sentence made sense.
In my day job I'm a hospice social worker, so I tend to keep my beliefs to myself. I support whatever gives my patients and their families comfort, and try to pitch to the chaplain if needed. I'll read the Bible to them, play hymns, or call a priest for the sac. of the sick. My deep philosophical motto - different strokes for different folks.
Not so good to give ground either.
And, it's important to stand up and be counted in a census, otherwise you're handing a mandate to theocratic politicians.
Nagneto
Registered
Respect should never be a given but earned. Religion promotes too many horrible things to turn the other cheek.
What facts are you talking about? It seems like it is only logical to start from the position that unless you observe something, its not there, otherwise you have to catalog every possible infinite number of non-existent things every second and that's not even possible. So if something isn't observed then the only sensible starting point is that it isn't there.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2007
- Messages
- 1,940
- Reaction score
- 261
If you claim to be (or expect us to credit you with) intelligently basing your position on evidence or fact ... yes, you do.
YOUR OWN 'Conclusions' must be intelligently supported ... or you shouldn't be
1) making them or
2) be defending them here.
Pointing to the other guys' supposed wrongs simply ( yet logically) do not support your own unsupported /unsupportable 'conclusions' ...
Honestly, I've had this debate enough to know when the other side is grasping at straws, and when they don't even have a straw to grasp at!
YOUR 'conclusions' need YOUR support of fact or evidence ... or they're defective 'conclusions.'
But you're welcome to your BELIEFS!
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2007
- Messages
- 1,940
- Reaction score
- 261
Again: YOUR conclusions demand YOUR support (of evidence or fact).
Pointing at another position doesn't support YOURS.
You could ALL be wrong.
I'm asking atheists for THEIR support (they should WELCOME the opportunity to prove their case) ... usually, sadly, I only get them pointing to someone else.
Small axe, you are missing the point by a few parsecs. As an atheist, I am not making a claim. Atheism is the absence of belief, the absence of any claim.
When you understand why you can't answer Amadan's questions about your absence of belief in Santa or Bigfoot, you will understand why we cannot answer your question about belief in god.
When you understand why you can't answer Amadan's questions about your absence of belief in Santa or Bigfoot, you will understand why we cannot answer your question about belief in god.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2011
- Messages
- 441
- Reaction score
- 393
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2007
- Messages
- 1,940
- Reaction score
- 261
I'm asking about the 'facts' (your facts) that support an atheistic 'conclusion' ...
I have no problem with anyone who admits "I don't know, so I cannot reach an intelligent conclusion about the existence of God, gods, etc"
I could have a problem with someone who defends an unintelligent or unsupported conclusion.
Atheists are in error imo when they attempt to claim that FAITH or a believer's SUBJECTIVE spiritual evidence needs the same sort of 'evidence' or 'support' that ATHEISTS fail at delivering.
Faith is the support the Faithful demand of themselves. They live up to the criteria their Faith positions demand.
What 'facts' does an ATHEIST position demand ... that ATHEISTS can supply?
Because if you cannot support your own position by your own criteria ... your position fails.
Period. By that criteria, the need to 'observe or it doesn't exist' ...much of current quantum theory and astronomical theory must be rejected.
You could not accept historical accounts of events you cannot observe. (or if you accept them, you then must explain how you reject religious accounts by witnesses of religious events)
HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS itself is reduced to mere subjective hallucination.
Do that if it's what you need to hold your conclusions together.
I do understand your point. However, I could as easily destroy your point by saying: THAT is exactly WHY you cannot intelligently reach your atheistic conclusion.
'It's not even possible' to quote you.I could say "And if you were thinking straight, you'd realize you hold an unsustainable conclusion." Which calls your thinking (and your position) into doubt.
I don't mean to insult YOU there, but I'm offering a direct counter-argument to your statements.
Again, accepting THAT extreme position damages any materialist argument concerning a huge spectrum of human experience.
You cannot 'observe' any other human's subjective human awareness.
But does that mean you think YOU are the only self-aware being on this planet, and everyone else is merely an automaton robot presenting you with 'observeable' stimuli?
I think right there is where we start backing you away from the validity of your rebuttal above.
I'm happy to continue the discussion.
But I ask for THEIR EVIDENCE to support anyone's "no god exists" position.
If they fail to give it, they fail by THEIR standards, not mine.
Because by my standards, you're ALL creatures of FAITH ... and when folks claim evidence but only support it with their atheistic faith ... that supports MY position!!!
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2011
- Messages
- 441
- Reaction score
- 393
They advertise on TV using their kids. The kids are dressed in white shirts and ties and at the end of the commerical they're smiling at the camera and say, "I'll see ya in church!"
Even though I'm an atheist, I think it's cute.
You've succeeded in completely derailing this thread, the point of which was to discuss the use of the label atheist v. non-believer.I'm asking about the 'facts' (your facts) that support an atheistic 'conclusion' ...
I have no problem with anyone who admits "I don't know, so I cannot reach an intelligent conclusion about the existence of God, gods, etc"
I could have a problem with someone who defends an unintelligent or unsupported conclusion.
Atheists are in error imo when they attempt to claim that FAITH or a believer's SUBJECTIVE spiritual evidence needs the same sort of 'evidence' or 'support' that ATHEISTS fail at delivering.
Faith is the support the Faithful demand of themselves. They live up to the criteria their Faith positions demand.
What 'facts' does an ATHEIST position demand ... that ATHEISTS can supply?
Because if you cannot support your own position by your own criteria ... your position fails.
By that criteria, the need to 'observe or it doesn't exist' ...much of current quantum theory and astronomical theory must be rejected.
You could not accept historical accounts of events you cannot observe. (or if you accept them, you then must explain how you reject religious accounts by witnesses of religious events)
HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS itself is reduced to mere subjective hallucination.
Do that if it's what you need to hold your conclusions together.
I do understand your point. However, I could as easily destroy your point by saying: THAT is exactly WHY you cannot intelligently reach your atheistic conclusion.
I could say "And if you were thinking straight, you'd realize you hold an unsustainable conclusion." Which calls your thinking (and your position) into doubt.
I don't mean to insult YOU there, but I'm offering a direct counter-argument to your statements.
Again, accepting THAT extreme position damages any materialist argument concerning a huge spectrum of human experience.
You cannot 'observe' any other human's subjective human awareness.
But does that mean you think YOU are the only self-aware being on this planet, and everyone else is merely an automaton robot presenting you with 'observeable' stimuli?
I think right there is where we start backing you away from the validity of your rebuttal above.
I'm happy to continue the discussion.
But I ask for THEIR EVIDENCE to support anyone's "no god exists" position.
If they fail to give it, they fail by THEIR standards, not mine.
Because by my standards, you're ALL creatures of FAITH ... and when folks claim evidence but only support it with their atheistic faith ... that supports MY position!!!
A. Atheists do not owe you any explanations.
B. If we give you any, you will continue to twist and underline and bold and nail Jell-O to the wall. I'm unimpressed.
C. What JimmyB27 said.
- Status