Categorizing Non-Theists

Thankyou JL and TTF

Coluber, I bow to you because there is no you--only Buddha.

ttf

There is also a last cathegory of atheist. The enraged atheist.
The one, like in De Sade's novels, that claims that there is no God and then spents hours shouting the worst blasphemies. It is as if he wanted to insult his not existent god.

About Hell: if I could find there people like Plato, Democritus, Spinoza, Galileo, Kant, Heidegger, Beethoven, Wagner, Dostoievski and so many others, I think it would not be a bad place to spend eternity.
What do you have in heaven: mother Teresa, the pope John-Paul II ...
Where would you prefer to go?

I'm with Frank, but if I hadda choose from the list offered, I s'pose it'd be a rather broad "C", with extensive overlap into both "B" and "D".

val,

I'm going count those "enraged atheists" as Theists with 'tude .

As I mentioned earlier...and as Yitwail mentioned...I reject the word "unknowable" in category D...and therefore reject D. If there is a God...all evidence I see indicates that it is unknown...but that does not perforce mean it is unknowable.

If there are no gods...that seems to be unknowable.

Frank (and Yitwail) , I'm a bit slow but I think I've got it.

I've adjusted category D accordingly.

I've let it out a little 'round the hips...does it fit any better?

IMO there needs to be another choice. For me, the concept of God is a non-issue. It is in about the same category as angels, the tooth fairy, and alligators in the New York City sewer system.

For me, The concept of God is lumped in the broader category of highly unlikely superstitions. And it isn't so much that I don't know. I don't CARE about the concept of God, as anything more than a cultural artifact. The problem is, I am constantly faced with individuals who lead their lives centering about this "God" concept, and cannot escape its impact on me.

It fits.

But I like my characterization of my agnosticism better.

Hehe,

I knew you'd rebel against being boxed in Frank !

But the exercise has certainly been enlightening for me at least. I think I could almost safely reply with these 6 categories next time I'm asked what atheists and agnostics believe.

Phoenix, I'm not sure that would require a new category. If anything you might be drifting from B towards A. The strength of feeling in the matter isn't really relevant.

I might suggest that if for some reason you suddenly discovered that you really were going to burn in hell, you might suddenly feel a little more interested.

I doubt that very much. I be buried in a bikini, just in case!

Selection D is now worded in such a way that it is very close to what I consider I am.

The only thing seperating me from Selection D is that I feel I have had experiences that are of an other.

I often wonder if the only thing seperating Frank and I - then - is the bias of how we interpret our data.

In other words, Frank, sees data that is ambigious (admitedly the experiences I have had could be interpreted as such) as not coming from God whereas I do.

I understand Franks demands that if there is a God he should make himself clearly known to him. His posts remind me of Nietzche's railings against God as the 'potter who bungled too much' in that - if he wanted us to know his existence why did he make us with ears that could not hear him clearly and eyes that could not see him clearly.

I then wonder if the path that Kierkegarrd that laid out is the right one. Subjective knowledge, knowledge of a subject to religion is the only way to religious knowledge vs. objective knowledge - knowledge of the scientist.

I believe that this simple list and open minded individuals have taught me more about this topic than a lot of other readings.

TTF

This is what I was talking about in the other thread when I said the 'pissed off athiest'. I think this version of athiest that you outlined above Val - is not an athiest at all. It seems, please correct me if wrong, that you cannot be angry at a 'nothing'. I don't think (as Eorl joked) that you can just add an attitude to any of the defined categories and make him the angry athiest.

TTF

take suntan lotion too, it's hot down there. The only thing worse than an eternity of pain and suffereing is an etertnity of pain and suffering plus sunburn.

Interesting TTF.

Seems to me that the only thing keeping you out of category D for non-theists is a drift towards...well...theism. Is that correct?

TTF, I was worried that wouldn't be obvious, I actually said the angry atheist is a ...THEIST with 'tude.

I am not sure Eorl. But if I agree with that - it seems fair to say that the only think that keeps non-theists inside category D is thier drift toward non-theism.

That is not entirely fair however, there could be a member of category D that has yet to have an experience that could be interpreted as religious.


The thing that I know is that once I started to lean toward believing in a God - after man years of simply not thinking about it - and then a few years of searching for the truth regarding God - I felt that I was experiencing more and more of God. As if, when I began to lean, the object I thought I was experiencing gave me a swift shove.

The only type of knowledge of a God (if our preliminary definitions are at all in the right ball park) it would have to be subjective and incomplete. Thus the experience of God could be subjective to the person, different in many ways, and still be the truth.

TTF

TTF I think you have identified Category G.
Will update accordingly

I deal with Jason's "personal experience with God" in the same way every time I hear it.

I ask the following question:

How do you know you are not deluding yourself with this notion of a personal experience?

If the answer is "I do not know"...then we are right back where we started.

Nevertheless I thought it fair to add another category, the "as yet undecided".

I'm kinda surprised it wasn't obvious to me up front.

I guess I fit in category C, with an inclination towards E. (I think the existence of gods very very unlikely, in fact negligible)

It appares to me that the people reffered to as "angry atheists" are generally not angry at anyone, they are merely pointing out the contradiction between an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenivolent deity, and the world as we know it. Doing this by pointing out that if any god set the world as we know it up, it logically follows that this god is either sadistic or at the very least indifferent leads many theists to mistake their argument for one of "god is evil thus he does not exist". They do not seem to grasp that if you wish to discard something which follows from a set of premises you need to also discard at least one of those premises. Which is of course what said atheist is getting at, though it is ofthen only implied.

I've not heard of any profanity shouting branch of atheism though, it might be a US phenomenon.