The 6 Types of Atheists and Non-Believers in America

reply to post by jiggerj


Thanks jigger. My apologies to wild were in reference to effectively derailing her thread. That's not what I intended to do and I think my posts speak to that.

My apologies to Blue were genuine and an attempt to create an agreeable starting point from which to forge a working relationship. I think my posts speak to that as well. I was not apologizing for believing my metaphysics and epistemology are sound but for the way I clearly unintentionally came across to Blue. I have a few real-world friends who are pluralists and they are hard to please. That doesn't keep me from trying while staying true to my beliefs.

In Humanity,
Daniel

reply to post by Philodemus


Is Pluralism being used to mean

"Religious pluralism, the acceptance of all religious paths as equally valid, promoting coexistence"

?

reply to post by Philodemus


I admire your humility in this matter. I hope others set your example aside for future reference as I believe it is an excellent demonstration of peaceful resolution. I wish we saw that behavior more often in the religious forum.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


No lucid. They are self-identified as such.

reply to post by wildtimes


OP, perhaps there is not much controversial about delineating the various sorts of non-believers, but I do take exception with the introductory paragraph in the piece you pointed to, which says that researchers were asking why people are abandoning religion. Some of us were raised atheists, so we haven't abandoned religion. It is hard to abandon something you have never had in the first place.

As for the groupings, okay, they sound reasonable. What about them?

Hmm
I tend to have a foot in both 1 and 3. Not like it matters mind you.

Ultimately I don't know. but my not knowing is no excuse to then pretend I know and find some religion that suits my general outlook on life....that defeats the whole purpose of not knowing.

So, do I believe in deities? nope...but then again, I don't believe in many things that could possibly be true...once I see one (of whatever I don't believe in), I will then re-evaluate my stance after new tested info comes in.


I highly doubt any single religion is true. I have issues with religion alright, but as far as deities...sort of neutral on that actually.

Would be cool if there was one (or some).

I believe in "ghosts" though
(just don't know what they are)

I think a lot of people get confused also with anti-gnostic verses atheism.

A person can indeed be pretty neutral and generally accepting of concepts of deities in general, and can be quite rabidly anti-religious...hell, a person could be a theist and be against religion quite angrily simply from a intellectual standpoint.

In my personal mind, structured religion has no ownership of any deity...it is simply gnostics demanding they know how to think about the subject and have come up with pseudo-facts and nonsense fairy tales to set in stone their ownership of the deity concept.

In my opinion, all gnostics are a pain the butt...be it gnostic theist or gnostic atheist..both sides give me a headache to talk to.

Any gnostic needs only 4 words: show me the proof. then they can safely be dismissed until they show you what they know to be the absolute solid bulletproof evidence of their supposed knowledge.

reply to post by SaturnFX

I think a lot of people get confused also with anti-gnostic verses atheism.

Wouldn't the agnostic atheist be interchangeable with anti-gnostic in this context?

I think a lot of people misunderstand the relationship between agnosticism and atheism. Doesn't seem like you do since you're using terms like gnostic-atheist

A person can indeed be pretty neutral and generally accepting of concepts of deities in general, and can be quite rabidly anti-religious...

Which is how I would describe myself. My position on god is that of agnostic atheist.... I am certainly open to the concepts but my belief in its existence requires substantial reason. At least how people classically define these concepts.

hell, a person could be a theist and be against religion quite angrily simply from a intellectual standpoint.

This would be a description for a Deist depending on the nature of that intellectual standpoint.

Originally posted by SaturnFX

I highly doubt any single religion is true. I have issues with religion alright, but as far as deities...sort of neutral on that actually.

Would be cool if there was one (or some).

Have you heard of Advaita Vedanta? Advaita Vedanta it is at the root of all religions. Another name for it is 'non duality'.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

I think a lot of people get confused also with anti-gnostic verses atheism.

Wouldn't the agnostic atheist be interchangeable with anti-gnostic in this context?

No, agnostic atheist is literally...don't have knowledge, doesn't believe.
anti-gnostic is more of a movement..to slam down the people (religion) whom says they do know...also for atheists whom claim they know matter of factly there is no deity (gnostic goes both ways..just means having knowledge).

I am an agnostic atheist, I also at times can be provoked into anti-gnostic debates.
the pop word is anti-theism...which is actually a bit moronic when you consider the words...you can't be against a deity if you don't believe either way..you can however be anti-gnostic (against the people that claim to have knowledge).
but anti-theism for some strange reason has caught on moreso than anti-gnostic.
but either way, it doesn't relate...and not interchangeable. a agnostic atheist can be perfectly fine with other religions doing their thing, gaining control, getting tax exempt status, preaching all the time in ears view, etc.

I think a lot of people misunderstand the relationship between agnosticism and atheism. Doesn't seem like you do since you're using terms like gnostic-atheist

Lot of poorly informed people...in saying that, some dictionaries has accepted the dumbed down terms just to confuse the subject
see Link for example of how they hack up definition (and the comments underneath that have tried to have the people, whos job it is to know words, to fix this false info).

There is, and has always been, a willful dumbing down of such things in order to make the whole discussion atheism has seem venomous and religious...
a doctrine, a refusal, etc...pfft

reply to post by MrInquisitive

do take exception with the introductory paragraph in the piece you pointed to, which says that researchers were asking why people are abandoning religion. Some of us were raised atheists, so we haven't abandoned religion. It is hard to abandon something you have never had in the first place.

Not sure, but maybe because people who are life-long atheists don't bother about it much? Perhaps it's that the "abandoners" are more vocal and active after their shift, and want to reach out to others.

As for the groupings, okay, they sound reasonable. What about them?

Nothing in particular. I just thought it might spark some conversation. I enjoy studying "personality types" and "behavior", that's why it's interesting to me at least.

reply to post by WhiteHat

And what's the point to try to convince somebody that his trip is just a trip? As long as he's enjoying it....

Sadly, many people indoctrinated with religion are NOT "enjoying it". They are living in fear and self-loathing....
I chose as my profession to learn the skills of helping people who are decidedly (by their own decision) NOT enjoying their lives, who want things to change. I try to help them understand and deconstruct how they got to the point of "suffering" and to help them explore ways to relieve themselves of that suffering.

Some of the first questions are, "What seems to be bothering you?"

"Can you tell me about what led you here today?"

"If you could wake up tomorrow, and your individual life was EXACTLY how you'd LIKE it to be, what would it look like? Tell me, from the moment you woke up, how it would go - ANYTHING is acceptable to imagine, e.g. new job, parents disappeared, live in the countryside, have a house full of cats, not have to mow the yard, be healthier - whatever. Just let your thoughts flow for a while to what YOU REALLY WANT."

That last question seems straightforward, but it's significant just how many people HAVE NO IDEA what is at the root of their angst or dis-ease.

When you are able to help them draw their mindset, history, and worldview into the light, they often can see options for themselves and identify their own counter-productive strategies.
This opens the door for change - learning new strategies, letting go of stagnant 'thought patterns', etc.

Then the helper's job is to ASSIST THEM in exploring ALL of the options, considering what the outcomes might be, and MAKING THE BEST DECISION for THEMSELVES. It's NOT about "imposing" values, it's about helping the individual determine their OWN values.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

"Religious pluralism, the acceptance of all religious paths as equally valid, promoting coexistence"

That's what I thought it was, but I might be wrong....
Philo says it's something different? I wonder what he sees it as, then.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Yes, I'm definitely a THREE above all else, in terms of "categorization." I wonder why I left that off yesterday?
But yeah: Seeker Agnostic hand raised.
thanks for participating, Saturn!

While I don't share LesMis's feelings regarding categorization and the application of labels, I do feel that the categorization as demonstrated by the material Wildtimes presented to us was rather poorly done. There's little distinction, plenty of overlap, and hastily worded diagnosi.

With that said, I don't believe I will be borrowing any labels from that particular system. In fact, I feel that perhaps forcing each other to use more than two or three words to explain where we stand in the vast web of idealism may be more beneficial than sticking to such a spare handful of words and expecting everyone to know exactly what we mean. It may turn out that we have to explain what it means anyway, in which case we could discover that our explanation doesn't mesh with the term we applied to ourselves, proving that labels, while necessary, are still a fine art and must be treated accordingly.

In a word: futile. That's my two bent pennies on the subject.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

While I don't share LesMis's feelings regarding categorization and the application of labels, I do feel that the categorization as demonstrated by the material Wildtimes presented to us was rather poorly done. There's little distinction, plenty of overlap, and hastily worded diagnosi.

Which of the two articles did you read, AfterI? The first highlight linked straight to the original research results, giving background on the study itself, and goes into MUCH more detail on the different "types."

The article I extracted from was simply a piece ABOUT the research; and I truncated the descriptions to what I thought were the basic ideas. Certainly the article gives a lengthier description of each as well.

Perhaps I didn't give the OP enough oomph to get the points across. I was actually trying to "keep my post shorter" than my usual ramblings.

How would you describe your own 'style' if someone asked you to put it succinctly (like: briefly describe your stance on the topics of God and religion)...

reply to post by wildtimes


I didn't say anything about the research that went into the categorization. I said that the results are rather...fuzzy. They're all shades of the same color, if that makes any sense. It's like taking a cluster of lilacs and categorizing them by the angle at which they lean. They are all the same kind of flower, but apparently, their relationship with external influences defines them as being even further distinguished from one another.

I guess I just don't see the point. Categorization for the sake of categorization, not because there's anything particularly noteworthy regarding their differences.

How would you describe your own 'style' if someone asked you to put it succinctly (like: briefly describe your stance on the topics of God and religion)...

It's a complicated thing. Simply put, "God" is a crutch for the malcontent, and religion is the users guide for that crutch. There was a point in time in which the necessity for such could easily have been argued, but that time is now past. I wouldn't take such issue if it weren't for the fact that, in my mind, world and society is suffering from the lack of proactive self-determination. I feel that religion feeds into this.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

I didn't say anything about the research that went into the categorization. I said that the results are rather...fuzzy.

Yeah, kinda like the human condition in general! Point taken....

They're all shades of the same color, if that makes any sense. It's like taking a cluster of lilacs and categorizing them by the angle at which they lean. They are all the same kind of flower, but apparently, their relationship with external influences defines them as being even further distinguished from one another.

Yep! Just like people!!!


The most we can do to "categorize" people ACCURATELY is by genotypes such as race, and age, as in: adult, child, and that's about it. Even gender is now 'fuzzy' in some ways...or I'd say "male" and "female."

Among children we have wise ones far beyond their "years", and fully grown ones that behave like small children...

There is NO 'categorization' that works for everyone except: HUMAN.

Sometimes I think that laughter and tears, joy and grief - are the ONLY things that EVERYONE has in common (aside of course, from all being One, and connected to one another in the universe at large).

Even gender is now 'fuzzy' in some ways...or I'd say "male" and "female."

Originally posted by BlueMule

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to [url= by BlueMule[/url]

 

Soo....are you going to enlighten us to this belligerent crowd's location? Or just leave us hanging??

Yeah its a propaganda site disguised as an educational foundation. It has a forum.

edit on 12-7-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)

Lol as opposed to the thousands and thousands of religious/spiritual sites that attempt to present themselves as educational but in reality are mere tools for religious/spiritual propagation/profit?

reply to post by wildtimes


What? He was asking if I was using "pluralist" in a derogatory way when all I said is that I have some pluralist friends and that we get along just fine. They aren't offended when I try to persuade them to think as I do and I am not offended when they do the same to me. I said, "no" to Lucid because he asked if I was using the term in a mean way. No. My friends are self-identified as such. What's going on in this thread?