Why I'm No Longer An Atheist

[Transgirlofnofaith]

I was watching Sam Harris's speech at AA 07 on Youtube yesterday, and what he was saying really made sense to me.

"So let me make my somewhat seditious proposal explicit. We should not call ourselves Atheists. We should not call ourselves Secularists. We should not call ourselves Secular Humanists, or Freethinkers, or rationalists, or Anti-theists, or Brights. We should not call ourselves anything. We should go under the radar, for the rest of our lives, and while there we should be decent, honest people who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them." -At 11:54-12:30.




When I first heard that spech, I was still more convinced of the need for some sort of label. But since then, from being on RD.net and here, I have come to the conclusion that although supernatural beliefs are a mental cancer and a bomb waiting to go off, they are only one more category of bad ideas crossed off the list. Human stupidity is like a gas. It expands into whatever space is available. Religion being knocked off the list still leaves plenty of other horrible ideas and concepts. So I think that drawing a firm line around non-theistic ideas, and building an embassy of reason on top of it just seems to be making a false distinction, because the lack of belief in deities isn't the be-all, end-all that some make it out to be.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

For years I said "I don't care enough about religion to call myself an atheist."

[Transgirlofnofaith]

For years I said "I don't care enough about religion to call myself an atheist."

Wow. A great point, and in such a concise form. You are quite clever whenever you're not trying to one-up yourself for goofiness. Bravo, man.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

For years I said "I don't care enough about religion to call myself an atheist."

Wow. A great point, and in such a concise form. You are quite clever whenever you're not trying to one-up yourself for goofiness. Bravo, man.

I escape from my cleverness through my goofiness. My serious side requires great offset.

[FBM]

'Atheism' is perfectly fine, etymologically-speaking. It's just that the fundie wingnuts have managed to attach so much emotion-provoking baggage to it over the years. Whatever replaces it will eventually get the same, so I say stick with it and made it a badge of honor. In the same vein as when James Brown sang, 'Say it out loud: I'm black and I'm proud.'

[Transgirlofnofaith]

For years I said "I don't care enough about religion to call myself an atheist."

Wow. A great point, and in such a concise form. You are quite clever whenever you're not trying to one-up yourself for goofiness. Bravo, man.

I escape from my cleverness through my goofiness. My serious side requires great offset.

That's exactly why I have such a goofy sense of humour!
(Why are the most interesting people so often men, Bella excepted, of course?)

[irreligionist]

Hmm I still think atheist is a valid term. But I see his point.

[MrFungus420]

Well, since theist and atheist encompass the entirety of the spectrum, you MUST be one or the other.

So, if you say that you are "no longer an atheist", then you are now a theist.

[FBM]

Well, since theist and atheist encompass the entirety of the spectrum, you MUST be one or the other.

So, if you say that you are "no longer an atheist", then you are now a theist.

Hmmm...false dilemma. Those two terms are opposite, true, but they don't span the entire spectrum. Instead, they only represent the two extremes. It's not really quite so black-or-white. The middle ground is held by various forumlations of agnosticism, or, in 'zilla's case, apatheism. (apathy about theism)

Then there are belief systems in which 'gods' exist, but not a creator god. Is that true theism? Or belief systems in which 'gods' are long-lived, but not immortal.

[Transgirlofnofaith]

Well, since theist and atheist encompass the entirety of the spectrum, you MUST be one or the other.

So, if you say that you are "no longer an atheist", then you are now a theist.

Well, what he was saying in the video obviously went right over your head. At one point he says 'I am an Atheist by most people's definition'. So you are conflating philosophical categorization with personal description.

[Thinking Aloud]

Well, since theist and atheist encompass the entirety of the spectrum, you MUST be one or the other.

So, if you say that you are "no longer an atheist", then you are now a theist.

Hmmm...false dilemma. Those two terms are opposite, true, but they don't span the entire spectrum. Instead, they only represent the two extremes. It's not really quite so black-or-white. The middle ground is held by various forumlations of agnosticism, or, in 'zilla's case, apatheism. (apathy about theism)

Then there are belief systems in which 'gods' exist, but not a creator god. Is that true theism? Or belief systems in which 'gods' are long-lived, but not immortal.

The usual definitions are somewhere along these lines (there's another debate to open!):

Atheist: "one without a belief in a god / one who does not believe in a god" - not "believes god does not exist";
Deist: "one with a belief in a (non-interventionist) god - not "believes god exists";
Theist: "one with a belief in a(n interventionist) god - not "believes god exists";
Gnostic: "one who claims knowledge";
Agnostic: "one who does not claim knowledge".

Typically, the common usage of "atheist" defines it as someone who believes god does not exist, and this includes dictionary references, but the word itself strictly speaking does not imply a position on such knowledge.

Ignoring that, the usual "range" of belief would be:

Gnostic Atheist: "I know there is no god" (faith based position);
Agnostic Atheist: "I don't know that there is no god, but I don't believe there is one" - the position of the majority of atheists (evidence based position);
Agnostic Theist / Deist: "I don't know for sure that god exists, but I believe he does" (faith based position);
Gnostic Theist / Deist: "I know that god exists" (faith based position).

[AshtonBlack]

Well, since theist and atheist encompass the entirety of the spectrum, you MUST be one or the other.

So, if you say that you are "no longer an atheist", then you are now a theist.

Hmmm...false dilemma. Those two terms are opposite, true, but they don't span the entire spectrum. Instead, they only represent the two extremes. It's not really quite so black-or-white. The middle ground is held by various forumlations of agnosticism, or, in 'zilla's case, apatheism. (apathy about theism)

Then there are belief systems in which 'gods' exist, but not a creator god. Is that true theism? Or belief systems in which 'gods' are long-lived, but not immortal.

The usual definitions are somewhere along these lines (there's another debate to open!):

Atheist: "one without a belief in a god / one who does not believe in a god" - not "believes god does not exist";
Deist: "one with a belief in a (non-interventionist) god - not "believes god exists";
Theist: "one with a belief in a(n interventionist) god - not "believes god exists";
Gnostic: "one who claims knowledge";
Agnostic: "one who does not claim knowledge".

Typically, the common usage of "atheist" defines it as someone who believes god does not exist, and this includes dictionary references, but the word itself strictly speaking does not imply a position on such knowledge.

Ignoring that, the usual "range" of belief would be:

Gnostic Atheist: "I know there is no god" (faith based position);
Agnostic Atheist: "I don't know that there is no god, but I don't believe there is one" - the position of the majority of atheists (evidence based position);
Agnostic Theist / Deist: "I don't know for sure that god exists, but I believe he does" (faith based position);
Gnostic Theist / Deist: "I know that god exists" (faith based position).

The Agnostic Atheist, is, in my opinion, the most rational position to take. But, I get Sam's point.

[The Dawktor]

For years I said "I don't care enough about religion to call myself an atheist."

Gawd- that made you An Ignorestic then!

I am happy with the atheist term- if only as a label to begin dialogue with theists and to flush out the agnostics.

I do not believe that we should hide our status as long as foolish theists continue to try and gain influence on everyones' lives and whilst theists commit atrocities in the name of their faith. It enables us to stand together and remind the world that we don't blow ourselves and others up etc etc.

[MrFungus420]

Well, since theist and atheist encompass the entirety of the spectrum, you MUST be one or the other.

So, if you say that you are "no longer an atheist", then you are now a theist.

Hmmm...false dilemma. Those two terms are opposite, true, but they don't span the entire spectrum. Instead, they only represent the two extremes. It's not really quite so black-or-white. The middle ground is held by various forumlations of agnosticism, or, in 'zilla's case, apatheism. (apathy about theism)

Then there are belief systems in which 'gods' exist, but not a creator god. Is that true theism? Or belief systems in which 'gods' are long-lived, but not immortal.

Theism = belief in a god.
Atheism = without that belief.

Either you have the belief, or you don't.

[MrFungus420]

Well, since theist and atheist encompass the entirety of the spectrum, you MUST be one or the other.

So, if you say that you are "no longer an atheist", then you are now a theist.

Hmmm...false dilemma. Those two terms are opposite, true, but they don't span the entire spectrum. Instead, they only represent the two extremes. It's not really quite so black-or-white. The middle ground is held by various forumlations of agnosticism, or, in 'zilla's case, apatheism. (apathy about theism)

Then there are belief systems in which 'gods' exist, but not a creator god. Is that true theism? Or belief systems in which 'gods' are long-lived, but not immortal.

The usual definitions are somewhere along these lines (there's another debate to open!):

Atheist: "one without a belief in a god / one who does not believe in a god" - not "believes god does not exist";
Deist: "one with a belief in a (non-interventionist) god - not "believes god exists";
Theist: "one with a belief in a(n interventionist) god - not "believes god exists";
Gnostic: "one who claims knowledge";
Agnostic: "one who does not claim knowledge".

I would argue that deism (and pantheism, for that matter) should be a sub-group of theism.