What kind of atheist are you?

[Andalublue]

There's often quite a lot of blanket name-calling around DP. Woe betide anyone who lumps the likes of the WBC with the mainstream of protestantism, or Islamists with ordinary Moslems. Well, the same can be said for atheism. Not all atheists believe the same things or view their beliefs in the same way.

This is a rare study that actually makes an attempt to tease out a typology of atheism. Does it ring true? If you're an atheist, which type are you? Me, I reckon I'm 2/3 Type 2, and 1/3 Type 6.

It's quite a fun read for an academic document too...

Non-Belief Research in the United States

 

[Carjosse]

I am a intellectual atheist and a anti-theist.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

I'd say I'm a mix of two:

- Intellectual Atheist - I enjoy reading books written by the great atheist authors, I enjoy analyzing the facts and applying logic to the world.

- Anti-theist - I'm only an anti-theist when it comes to theists trying to force their beliefs on others, IE: by using the government. If they keep it to themselves, I absolutely don't care what they believe. My parents for instance, are extremely religious, and I'd never want to take that away from them. It defines and comforts them. They also don't try to use the government to make others miserable.

 

[Gardener]

Woe betide anyone who lumps the likes of Islamists with ordinary Moslems. .

That is usually the province of the apologists who wish no criticism of Islamism and so make claims that any such criticism is against all Muslims. They like to name call, so call people "Islamophobes" or "Bigots" if they dare oppose this political ideology.


I am an agnostic rather than an atheist, though, and a rational one rather than the sort of person who simply goes about the business of making sure I say the exact same things all my mates say. In rejecting theism, I also reject the adoption of any identity based upon ideology. Dogmatic belief is dogmatic belief no matter the label one might apply to it.

 

[DDD]

I do not know where I fit with all that. I have changing opinions. Sometimes I feel there is a source to life which I would then name God which would be the first one. But I also acknowledge that it is way too far and most likely no longer looks after us, which then is agnostic/deist. I also do not like it when religious people attempt to or do impose their values at my preferences.

 

[Sisyphus]

What kind of atheist are you?

The kind that rejects creation myths.

 

[HonestJoe]

"Lets resolve the problems with broad generalised categories by breaking them down in to slightly smaller generalised categories".

I'm the "Honest Joe" type of atheist and even that doesn't always have a consistent definition. Most the time I'm not even an atheist, I'm just a guy who happens to not believe in any gods. And sometimes I eat a green apple.

 

[DDD]

I'm the "Honest Joe" type of atheist and even that doesn't always have a consistent definition. Most the time I'm not even an atheist, I'm just a guy who happens to not believe in any gods. And sometimes I eat a green apple.

Greek, Dardanian, or Brazilian one?

 

[Mr. Invisible]

I'm the type of atheist that keeps to himself and doesn't bother religious people until they attempt to use the law to enforce their religious beliefs.

 

[Cephus]

I'm both an intellectual atheist and anti-theism. I differentiate that from being an anti-theist, I'm not against the people, I'm against the idiotic beliefs that they hold.

 

[shagg]

Seeker-Agnostic is almost spot on for me. the only thing i'm intolerant of is intolerance (and the behaviour it spawns), I'm interested in the truth above all else and doubt my own position as much as i doubt anyone elses. I don't care if i'm wrong on any given topic in a competetive sense, i'm very interested in finding out if i'm wrong and how so i can adjust my mental model and see what developes from there.

 

[Paschendale]

I don't really like trying to push myself into someone else's list, so I'll say what I think.

Due to learning and scientific knowledge, I think that it is almost impossible for any god that humans have spoken of to exist. It is likewise almost impossible for there to be some nebulous creator, since creation seems to happen just fine without it. The universe operates as if there is no god, so I conclude no god. I don't "believe" one way or the other.

I think that religion has served many functions throughout history, some of which were good. But in the modern age, those good parts are largely unneeded. We do not need to speculate about gods to understand the natural world. We can just examine it and find out for ourselves. We also do not get any kind of morality from religion. It's a part of who we are as humans and we do not need to have it dispensed in the form of myths to tell us how to behave. Cooperation, empathy, trust, and mutual respect is part of our biology. We do not need religion to tell us that rape is wrong (and many religions, in fact, fail to tell us this), we already know it.

The main thing that religion still does today is exert power over people. It allows one groups of people to tell other groups of people what to do. And that power is unjustified. And the myths and superstitions that those powerful people push are not beneficial, nor accurate. Religion allows priests to molest little boys and get away with it, religion allows anti-sex crusaders to teach children wrong information and lie to them about the consequences of sex and shame them for not following their crazy religious rules, religion allows power hungry maniacs to convince young men to fly airplanes into buildings.

So, religion has nothing useful to teach us, and allows bad people to hurt innocent people. I actively work to curtail the ability of religion to influence law and culture, so that no one will be forced to follow the rules of someone else's religion, and children won't be brought up afraid that they'll go to hell for masturbating.

Call me whatever kind of atheist you like, then.

 

[Ikari]

Probably more intellectual atheist, a bit of non-theist.

 

[Surtr]

Could have been considered a ritual-atheist a few years ago, but for the most part I'm just a non-theist now.

 

[Cardinal]

I'm the non-theist type of atheist.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Meta-Atheist.

Like an atheist, but better.

 

[AristocraticRep]

Intellectual atheist as well as a non-theist. It seems to contradict itself, but I have aspects of both. I love conversing about the existence of a deity, specifically in regards to the big bang theory or start of the universe, and I read books about important philosophic and religious questions. However, my worldview and the way I tackle issues completely disregards both religions and atheism. In other words, I enjoy discussing theology v.s. atheism and agnosticism, yet outside of those discussions I completely disregard religion or the lack thereof.

 

[Juiposa]

Based on these six types, I can say that I am an amalgamation of Intellectual Atheist, Activist and Anti-Theist.

 

[FreedomFromAll]

There's often quite a lot of blanket name-calling around DP. Woe betide anyone who lumps the likes of the WBC with the mainstream of protestantism, or Islamists with ordinary Moslems. Well, the same can be said for atheism. Not all atheists believe the same things or view their beliefs in the same way.

This is a rare study that actually makes an attempt to tease out a typology of atheism. Does it ring true? If you're an atheist, which type are you? Me, I reckon I'm 2/3 Type 2, and 1/3 Type 6.

It's quite a fun read for an academic document too...

Non-Belief Research in the United States

Those are all very specific definitions. Too much so actually. And enough for me to claim non of the above.

 

[Morrigi]

Indeed, it's far too specific. The guy's really missing the forest for the trees here.

Having said that, I do not believe in any kind of personal god such as that of Abrahamic belief and will not unless empirical and scientific evidence is presented.

While there is no real evidence of the reality of a non-personal entity or deistic view, the possibility is intriguing. I would say that with our truly limited knowledge of the universe it is impossible to tell what truly lies among and behind the stars. We have made great strides in the form of scientific knowledge in recent decades but I predict that a majority of it will be rewritten, amended upon, outright discarded, or replaced entirely in another few decades. Such are the machinations of the scientific process and reality itself, we have a very long way to go as humanity.

One would hope that someday we'll actually get there.

 

[AristocraticRep]

Indeed, it's far too specific. The guy's really missing the forest for the trees here.

Having said that, I do not believe in any kind of personal god such as that of Abrahamic belief and will not unless empirical and scientific evidence is presented.

While there is no real evidence of the reality of a non-personal entity or deistic view, the possibility is intriguing. I would say that with our truly limited knowledge of the universe it is impossible to tell what truly lies among and behind the stars. We have made great strides in the form of scientific knowledge in recent decades but I predict that a majority of it will be rewritten, amended upon, outright discarded, or replaced entirely in another few decades. Such are the machinations of the scientific process and reality itself, we have a very long way to go as humanity.

One would hope that someday we'll actually get there.

I hope not. I would hope that we keep making progress towards reality, but that new questions will continuously arise so as to sate the human desire for intellectual challenge.

 

[Morrigi]

I hope not. I would hope that we keep making progress towards reality, but that new questions will continuously arise so as to sate the human desire for intellectual challenge.

If we do, there may well be an infinite number of other universes out there and thus an infinite amount of questions.

 

[AristocraticRep]

If we do, there may well be an infinite number of other universes out there and thus an infinite amount of questions.

That would still be good, but you made it sound as if we found the ultimate "truth" or reality. As long as we both desire more questions, we are on the same page!

 

[Morrigi]

Something tells me that there will always be questions to be answered so long as the human race remains in a recognizable form.

 

[wolfman24]

The term is overrated. Atheist to me is the total rejection of any force or power greater than yourself. I would like to know how many people out there ACTUALLY think that. Some agree that "nature" is more powerful than them others think science or math or some other force or power. Does GOD have to be caporial (flesh and blood)(sp?)? Does IT even have to have form? Could IT even be just an IDEA that extends beyond yourself or understanding? IF so you are not an atheist. I am an aethesist which means I believe in the aesthetics of faith, I reject man made religion but accept some of the teachings of many of them. I believe in a supreme power that created the universe using what we refer to as the laws of nature (biology, physics and chemistry).

I have been called an atheist because I don't practice or belong to any religion. SO?