The 6 Types of Atheists and Non-Believers in America

reply to post by Philodemus


Philodemus you're most mistaken friend. I did not intend that at all. I am confused how that was inferred.

I really didn't understand what 'pluralism' was representing.

Still am not sure.

Surprised by your reaction.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by LesMisanthrope

 

How is it a sign of weakness? Labels are part of communication. It helps to define our vantage point in the vast web of communication.

By labelling someone, we limit them to those labels and see them as those labels rather than what they are. Rather than learn about them naked, we paint over them with labels, dressed up as we see fit. Seeing abstractions over the concrete is a fear of what stands before us.

An atheist is an atheist. Why abstract such a meaningless label.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


OH! I just re-read! My apologies! I misread what you put up. Yes, they are religious pluralist and one is perhaps more a value pluralist. I'm going to go pull my foot out of my mouth....lol

Hello wildtimes and other posters in this thread, just a heads up that this thread and topic will be discussed on Reality Remix Wed. night at 10pm Eastern.

"Join ATS Members SheepSlayer247, Adjensen, NoRegretsEver, Druid42 & Beezer for two hours of their take on threads past and present right here on ATS! "

Here is the thread to pick which way you want to listen in.
www.abovetopsecret.com...&addstar=1&on=16737466#pid16737466

reply to post by NoRegretsEver


That should be interesting. I'll definitely be tuning in for the show...I listen almost every night, whether it's a live broadcast or a rerun, unless it's just music.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

By labelling someone, we limit them to those labels and see them as those labels rather than what they are.

That's why we label ourselves, so others don't make the mistake of mislabelling us. I think the problem is that people don't understand the purpose of language and its proper usage.

Rather than learn about them naked, we paint over them with labels, dressed up as we see fit. Seeing abstractions over the concrete is a fear of what stands before us.

You're talking about how to shoot someone without killing them. I'm talking about how to avoid confrontation period. Sorry for the rough analogy, but that's what I got for now. I'm talking about using language the right way the first time instead of using it poorly with the least backlash.

Labels should be used to define ourselves. Just as you would not name a person, you shouldn't label them either. Let them label themselves...after all, the first and foremost purpose of labelling a sentient being is so that people understand their fundamental relationship to that sentient being, and vice versa. Is it dangerous, is it useful, is it fragile, etc.

An atheist is an atheist. Why abstract such a meaningless label.

Be careful what you call meaningless. Such words are a reflection of those who use them.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

That's why we label ourselves, so others don't make the mistake of mislabelling us. I think the problem is that people don't understand the purpose of language and its proper usage.

One should learn what the label entails before taking it upon himself, or he makes the mistake of mislabelling himself. This is done by atheists so much that they willingly wear a church created rhetorical device as their label, showing that their very name is dependent on that which they wish to repudiate.

You're talking about how to shoot someone without killing them. I'm talking about how to avoid confrontation period. Sorry for the rough analogy, but that's what I got for now. I'm talking about using language the right way the first time instead of using it poorly with the least backlash.

Exactly. If one wants to use language the right way, they shouldn't go out of their way to change the definitions of words to suit their fancy.

Labels should be used to define ourselves. Just as you would not name a person, you shouldn't label them either. Let them label themselves...after all, the first and foremost purpose of labelling a sentient being is so that people understand their fundamental relationship to that sentient being, and vice versa. Is it dangerous, is it useful, is it fragile, etc.

I agree one should label himself, but I have not found anyone up to that task, as no man in history has been able to answer the "Who are we?" question. Labelling oneself according to a belief system might be the most arrogant assumption in the world.

Be careful what you call meaningless. Such words are a reflection of those who use them.

Nothing can be further from the truth.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

This is done by atheists so much that they willingly wear a church created rhetorical device as their label, showing that their very name is dependent on that which they wish to repudiate.

Everything in this world is defined just as much by its opposite as by itself. Everything you are is partially defined by what you are not.

Exactly. If one wants to use language the right way, they shouldn't go out of their way to change the definitions of words to suit their fancy.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

I agree one should label himself, but I have not found anyone up to that task, as no man in history has been able to answer the "Who are we?" question.

Whomever we choose to be.

Labelling oneself according to a belief system might be the most arrogant assumption in the world.

Do you know a better means of identifying our relative positions in the vast web of ideologies?

Nothing can be further from the truth.

I disagree. Calling something meaningless is a short step away from calling it worthless or useless. That is more a reflection of your imagination than it is a reflection of what you call meaningless. Perhaps it is meaningless to you. That sounds like a limitation on your part.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Everything in this world is defined just as much by its opposite as by itself. Everything you are is partially defined by what you are not.

Only if man is the measure of all things, which he isn't. Everything is defined by man.

Do you know a better means of identifying our relative positions in the vast web of ideologies?

I never said I did. I'm merely pointing it out. Surely there's nothing wrong with that. No need to sugar-coat it.

I disagree. Calling something meaningless is a short step away from calling it worthless or useless. That is more a reflection of your imagination than it is a reflection of what you call meaningless. Perhaps it is meaningless to you. That sounds like a limitation on your part.

It's not even something. Calling a nothing meaningful is the limitation, one that is found in all religious psychologies. The limitation is found in the hypocrisy of those who can't find a way out of the same web they scorn. One might need a more creative imagination to get out of it.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

Only if man is the measure of all things, which he isn't. Everything is defined by man.

No, everything is defined by both what it is and what it is not. As much as I appreciate your views, I feel you are making a much bigger issue out of labels than what they actually are. If there is any problem with labels, it is in how mankind uses them. Labels themselves are nothing but useful when applied properly...like an axe, a gun, or a car.

I never said I did. I'm merely pointing it out. Surely there's nothing wrong with that. No need to sugar-coat it.

I suspect your objections would be better received if you had a solution to your complaint.

It's not even something. Calling a nothing meaningful is the limitation, one that is found in all religious psychologies.

You are essentially calling my beliefs nothing important. Not only is this offensive, it is careless and unnecessary. The better phrasing would be, "Atheism is of little consequence to me, therefore calling it meaningful from my perspective would be a waste of time and energy". In your mind, it means nothing. That's does not mean it is nothing. It means you have no appreciation for the concept. It does not mean such a concept cannot be appreciated.

I myself would appreciate if you recognized that.

It is the rise of the Anti-Theist that creates extra conflict, Bill Maher is one.
And there is a bunch on YouTube.
My observation of that category is they all seem to be so proud of how intellectually superior they are to all those stupid believers out there. There have been a few on ATS over the years, and sometimes they get so aggressive they get themselves banned, as eventually there smug condescending posts violate the T & C of ATS.

The debates between "Seeker-Agnostics" and "Anti-Theists" are some of the best I have seen on ATS.
It's hilarious when they attack the agnostic for not yet evolving to their level of intelligence.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

No, everything is defined by both what it is and what it is not. As much as I appreciate your views, I feel you are making a much bigger issue out of labels than what they actually are. If there is any problem with labels, it is in how mankind uses them. Labels themselves are nothing but useful when applied properly...like an axe, a gun, or a car.

No. Everything is defined by man. How is a tree defined by the moon? Are you saying that because the tree isn't the moon, we know it isn't the moon? I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

How many labels do you give to an axe? How many labels you give to yourself? One label is enough. Anything else is vanity.

You are essentially calling my beliefs nothing important. Not only is this offensive, it is careless and unnecessary. The better phrasing would be, "Atheism is of little consequence to me, therefore calling it meaningful from my perspective would be a waste of time and energy".

You are not offended by my opinion, you are offended by your own thoughts about my opinion. That is your doing.

You are essentially calling a negation of a belief important. But there's nothing there to not believe in. It is absurd. That, to me, is offensive and careless and unnecessary. Such a negation does nothing but promote the belief you negate, keeping God in the mind's eye every time you exclaim that you don't believe in him.

Explain to me how negation of something that doesn't exist is meaningful. And why you'd take a label expressing this meaning.

In your mind, it means nothing. That's does not mean it is nothing. It means you have no appreciation for the concept. It does not mean such a concept cannot be appreciated.

I myself would appreciate if you recognized that.

Can dish it out but cannot handle it? How many times has a Christian told you this about God?

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
It is the rise of the Anti-Theist that creates extra conflict, Bill Mayer is one.
And there is a bunch on YouTube.
My observation of that category is they all seem to be so proud of how intellectually superior they are to all those stupid believers out there. There have been a few on ATS over the years, and sometimes they get so aggressive they get themselves banned, as eventually there smug condescending posts violate the T & C of ATS.

Do you believe the 'rise of the Anti-Theist' is due to the fact even more people have access to vast amounts of knowledge these days, or due to the actions of theists overs the past few thousand years?

Or another reason maybe? or perhaps a combination of the two

Or maybe it's due to the fact that theists hold views that are so outrageous, so extraordinary in the year 2013, and have no evidence to back them up that they are found to be ridiculous?

And therefore worthy of ridicule?

I know that theists hold their beliefs to be holy and sacred, but some people hold their local football team, favorite singer etc in the same way. And whenever such things are mocked and ridiculed no-one really gives a hoot. But do the same to theists and they seem to think they and their beliefs are special and should be held to a different standard.

I say BS, believe whatever you want, worship whatever you want, but do not think your above criticism or mockery merely because you think.......or hope, your chosen entity won't like it.

You've had thousands of years of special treatment but it's now a level playing field and you have no choice but to get used to the fact that there are people in the world that will tell you exactly what they think of your beliefs and there's nothing you can do about it (anymore).

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Do you mean Bill MaHer?

In my opinion, agnosticism is the only sensible stance. If everyone agreed "we just don't know, and we can't know, so until our day comes to leave this Earth, how about we all just take care of each other?", then NO conflict would be necessary.

But there are too many people who are selfish, arrogant, greedy, or ignorant (or any combination of those things) to ever get there. I weep for humanity, and for my children and theirs.

reply to post by Prezbo369


I have been in enough discussions to understand a smug condescending tone ends a discussion very quickly, if the anti-theists is trying to make a point in that tone he will lose his audience very fast, this is somethings at least some Christians learned decades ago. If your tying to make a point doing it with attitude and scorn is not the way.
Then again some people on both sides just can't help themselves.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by Prezbo369

 

I have been in enough discussions to understand a smug condescending tone ends a discussion very quickly, if the anti-theists is trying to make a point in that tone he will lose his audience very fast, this is somethings at least some Christians learned decades ago. If your tying to make a point doing it with attitude and scorn is not the way.
Then again some people on both sides just can't help themselves.

A ' smug condescending tone' you say........

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
It is the rise of the Anti-Theist that creates extra conflict, Bill Maher is one.
And there is a bunch on YouTube.
My observation of that category is they all seem to be so proud of how intellectually superior they are to all those stupid believers out there. There have been a few on ATS over the years, and sometimes they get so aggressive they get themselves banned, as eventually there smug condescending posts violate the T & C of ATS.

You don't get to play that card, whether you're aware of it or not you're being hypocritical when attempting to accuse anyone of being 'smug' or 'condescending', or 'doing it with attitude and scorn'.

I'll say it again, you don't get special treatment just because you hold set of beliefs X.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


Believe it or not, you are offensive. And it's a little wounding that you don't seem to care. Here's a little advice: acknowledge your opinions as opinions. Don't tout them as widely held beliefs or facts, because they're not.

Explain to me how negation of something that doesn't exist is meaningful. And why you'd take a label expressing this meaning.

Whether or not the icon exists, the philosophy arranged around that icon does. Atheism, in my mind, rejects the idea of deities and the need for philosophies that rely upon them. So maybe you should put down that big ugly brush and start looking where you are painting. I realize you don't much care who gets splattered, but I do because I don't like generalization.

Why are you here? What is your point in participating in this thread? To prove that atheism is useless?

Can dish it out but cannot handle it? How many times has a Christian told you this about God?

Never. You know why? Because they cannot grasp that their god concept exists for purposes other than what they are told: to rule, to protect, and to destroy. To rule the world, protect those who join it, and destroy those who do not. They never consider the possibility that their deity is a reflection of something deep inside, something they wish they could be. A mechanized species, an untouchable race, a people who can never lose and will never die. Because then...fear will be obsolete. Perfection will be attained. And they can finally look upon themselves without being disgusted.

As an atheist, I support a humanist approach where humans should be imperfect and compassionate, rather than perfect and cold. Gods may not exist in the way we expect through our sacred texts, but that doesn't mean we don't seek to emulate the character profiles we are given. That which we admire, we will follow. And if our object of admiration is an all-powerful being who can do no wrong and who takes no prisoners, who accepts no flaw and offers no compromise, what will we then become? In our quest for perfection, I fear we will mistake the bonds of compassion for chains of weakness and slavery, and we will forsake our humanity for the paragon of manifest existence. Uniformity in all ways will be encouraged, and divergence of any sort without the express intent of furthering that cause will be exterminated and expunged. The very things we cherish will become as rats in the sewers, forever hiding in darkness because we've forgotten what it means to be alive and free.

If given the choice, how many people in this world would die for another to be spared? Who would forsake their life and family to keep another intact?

If you've ever read 1984 by George Orwell, you have some small idea of what I'm talking about.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Believe it or not, you are offensive. And it's a little wounding that you don't seem to care. Here's a little advice: acknowledge your opinions as opinions. Don't tout them as widely held beliefs or facts, because they're not.

You think I am offensive. Don't tout your opinion as widely held beliefs or facts. You give hypocrisy quite a bad name. Some advice.

Whether or not the icon exists, the philosophy arranged around that icon does. Atheism, in my mind, rejects the idea of deities and the need for philosophies that rely upon them. So maybe you should put down that big ugly brush and start looking where you are painting. I realize you don't much care who gets splattered, but I do because I don't like generalization.

Spare me. You don't like generalization while you generalize yourself and others with labels. I am talking about the label, not you. I don't know you. You're trying to defend a label tooth and nail as if it somehow encompasses you. Why don't you look where I am painting?

Why are you here? What is your point in participating in this thread? To prove that atheism is useless?

Does my presence bother you? I would imagine Christians feel the same way when atheists talk about God as if it was nothing. Why are you here? Why are you in their threads? I am taking a page from your playbook.

Never. You know why? Because they cannot grasp that their god concept exists for purposes other than what they are told: to rule, to protect, and to destroy. To rule the world, protect those who join it, and destroy those who do not. They never consider the possibility that their deity is a reflection of something deep inside, something they wish they could be. A mechanized species, an untouchable race, a people who can never lose and will never die. Because then...fear will be obsolete. Perfection will be attained. And they can finally look upon themselves without being disgusted.

Big ugly brush was it? Do you not care who you splatter with paint?

As an atheist, I support a humanist approach where humans should be imperfect and compassionate, rather than perfect and cold. Gods may not exist in the way we expect through our sacred texts, but that doesn't mean we don't seek to emulate the character profiles we are given. That which we admire, we will follow. And if our object of admiration is an all-powerful being who can do no wrong and who takes no prisoners, who accepts no flaw and offers no compromise, what will we then become? In our quest for perfection, I fear we will mistake the bonds of compassion for chains of weakness and slavery, and we will forsake our humanity for the paragon of manifest existence. Uniformity in all ways will be encouraged, and divergence of any sort without the express intent of furthering that cause will be exterminated and expunged. The very things we cherish will become as rats in the sewers, forever hiding in darkness because we've forgotten what it means to be alive and free.

If given the choice, how many people in this world would die for another to be spared? Who would forsake their life and family to keep another intact?

If you've ever read 1984 by George Orwell, you have some small idea of what I'm talking about.

As an atheist? I'm sure only atheists think along these lines.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

You think I am offensive. Don't tout your opinion as widely held beliefs or facts. You give hypocrisy quite a bad name. Some advice.

More often than not, if something is my opinion, you will find the phrase "in my opinion" somewhere in my post.

Spare me. You don't like generalization while you generalize yourself and others with labels.

Sure, I could state that I am atheist and begin to describe exactly what sort of atheist I am, but no one wants to listen to that. Just like no one wants to listen to a Jehovah's Witness expounding on how they are so much better than other theists. When I call myself an atheist, I am keeping it simple for the simple minded. And if you're not simple minded, it isn't that hard to ask me questions. Just don't get offended when I give you answers you might not like.

I am talking about the label, not you.

No. You are using the labelled to justify your dislike of the label.

I don't know you. You're trying to defend a label tooth and nail as if it somehow encompasses you. Why don't you look where I am painting?

I am defending the necessity of labels.

Does my presence bother you? I would imagine Christians feel the same way when atheists talk about God as if it was nothing. Why are you here? Why are you in their threads? I am taking a page from your playbook.

Did I complain? I don't think I did. I asked a question, that's all.

Big ugly brush was it? Do you not care who you splatter with paint?

If the description does not apply to someone, then I wasn't talking about them. But they'd better make damn sure that it doesn't apply first.

As an atheist? I'm sure only atheists think along these lines.

That's the problem - lack of consideration. I'm sure you've heard the whole argument before, but I stand by it nonetheless. Less divine dependence, more humanism. Maybe then we'll begin to recognize the harm we're doing to one another and the world, and have more faith in ourselves to fix it. I mean, who else is going to do it?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

More often than not, if something is my opinion, you will find the phrase "in my opinion" somewhere in my post.

Except when you call someone offensive?

No. You are using the labelled to justify your dislike of the label.

How can I use someone I don't even know?

Did I complain? I don't think I did. I asked a question, that's all.

I never said you complained. Did I say you complained? You asked why I was here. I answered.

If the description does not apply to someone, then I wasn't talking about them. But they'd better make damn sure that it doesn't apply first.

If my description applied to you, then I think my observations may be correct, except no one wants to hear it.

That's the problem - lack of consideration. I'm sure you've heard the whole argument before, but I stand by it nonetheless. Less divine dependence, more humanism. Maybe then we'll begin to recognize the harm we're doing to one another and the world, and have more faith in ourselves to fix it. I mean, who else is going to do it?

Wise words.

I hope you also know that I debate for pleasure. Each time we match wits we are getting better, challenging our beliefs in the process. This cultivates growth. I am not trying to be malicious, but having fun with someone who will treat me in kind. I am not fighting with you, but learning with you, sharpening our blades so to speak.

I too am atheist about deities, but my nominalism trumps even "atheism", any ideal, any label.