Categorizing Non-Theists

Wow Val. Good quote. Someday I will read more on Nietzche.

TF

0 Replies

Small point:
I wonder, what is the difference between types B and C? If you are not convinced, doesn't that mean that you think the existence of god is unlikely?

---Personally I am type D (existence of god is unknown), with the added flavor that if I were forced at gunpoint to decide whether or not there was a god, I would be type F (belief system incompatible with god).

0 Replies

You have left out one category: Those who don't give a flying **** . . .

0 Replies

Nietzche postulated "God is dead". Whether or not there currently is or ever was a god, no ambiguity surrounds Nietzche's present state of bein'. :wink:

0 Replies

fredjones, I agree they are pretty much the same by strict definition but there seems to be a degree of "lean" one way or the other. It is more about how they would describe themselves.

Category B might claim readiness to believe if someone can show them a reasonable case.

Category C might feel quite certain there are no gods, yet know through logic that they cannot be 100% sure.

-------

Setanta, Category A covers that situation completey as far as I can see. Convince me otherwise.

--------

timber, I'm sure I've seen Nietzche posting opinions right here on A2K, but it was a good theory while it lasted Wink

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

In discussions here I have discovered that there is great confusion regarding the terms
atheism and agnosticism and the great variety of views held by those who do not believe in gods.
I thought I would attempt to categorize the various positions (even though I won't be the first to
try) but I'll need help. Please tell me which of these you are, or if you do not fit any of the
following and why.

Theists

Non-Theist A : Has never heard of any gods and/or hasn't considered the matter

Non-Theist B : Has heard of gods but fails to be convinced of their existence.

Non-Theist C : Has heard of gods but thinks their existence is unlikely.

Non-Theist D : Has heard of gods but the nature of their existence is unknown to them, while their non-existence is unknowable.

Non-Theist E : Has heard of gods but claims to know that none exist.

Non-Theist F : Has heard of gods but has a belief system incompatible with the existence of gods.

Non-Theist G: Has heard of gods but has yet to reach any conclusions. Potentially Theists or

Non-Theists

HELP! . . . I'm not sure if any of these overlap with any of the first seven . . .

Non-Theist H: Has heard of gods but completely misunderstands the topic.

Non-Theist I: Has heard of gods and believes in many contradictory ones at the same time,
including none (static multi-polytheism that includes zero).

Non-Theist J: Has heard of gods and believes in using a changing selection of them, as needed.
(dynamic multi-polytheism that includes zero).

Non-Theist K: A church-hopper (serial monogamy with occasional abstinence).

Non-Theist L: Has heard of gods but thinks they may or may not exist, but creates
a new one anyways that someone else believes in.

Non-Theist M: Can't be bothered, so hires someone else to attend church for them.

Non-Theist N: A disbelieving preacher (liars or hypocrites who convince even themselves).

Non-Theist O: Believes in God but that God died. Or that God only exists in the future.

Non-Theist P: Believes in God, but NOT as pertaining to anything here in the Universe.

Non-Theist Q: Believes in a God that is unrecognizable to you or me.
(Is a supremely weak and stupid God still a valid God? TV for instance?)

Non-Theist R: Thinks all of existence is an illusion. Believes in a God that
they recognize is part of the illusion.

Non-Theist S: An atheist who genuinely prays to God, not for moral or ethical reasons,
but for the spiritual growth that it produces.

Non-Theist T: An atheist who actively prays to God, solely as emotional therapy.
The visualization still produces the same chemicals, to experience ecstacy,
reverence and a religious experience. God is actively used, but not believed
except on a chemical, emotional, or physical level.

Non-Theist U: Believes in God purely in the spiritual level, or even as poetry, but
that "God" has nothing to do with physical, historical, social or political matters.

I can't decide which I am, until I see all the possible choices.

-CB-

0 Replies

LOL

Nice one CodeBorg.

I actually see only one non-theist in that batch, category N, the atheist preist. They might fit into a few of the other categories. I imagine they are a lot more common than anyone would believe! They are "infidels" , (one who professes a belief one does not hold.)

Saying you are a theist doesn't make you one.

0 Replies

The disbelieving preacher brings up an interesting point. Is he still disbelieving if he convinces himself? It seems like those are mutually exclusive statements. I think I know what you were getting at, though. Maybe a preacher with a lot of doubt that quells his fear because if he stops believing in God then his whole life changes completely. He has a vested interest in belief. Is this the kind of thing you meant?

0 Replies

I think priests probably have what they call "crises of faith" on a regular basis but the churches long ago learned how to deal with them.

If I was the "coach" priest I'd tell the doubter not to fear the doubts, but to understand that they are natural and that God won't love you any less for failing to understand his nature. Crisis averted.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Setanta, Category A covers that situation completey as far as I can see. Convince me otherwise.

No, your category A does not at all cover contemptuous indifference. And don't attempt to order me about--i haven't the slightest interest in your convictions or their origins.

0 Replies

Setanta, you proposed my theory was incomplete. It now falls on you to demostrate why, or conceed defeat.

I am indifferent about whether the sun will rise in India tomorrow. All the same, I believe it will. The indifference bears little relation to the belief.

I won't accept your new category into my theory until you give me reasons why I should.

Finally,

Quote:

And don't attempt to order me about--i haven't the slightest interest in your convictions or their origins.

Your engagement in the discussion proves you wrong. Razz

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Setanta, you proposed my theory was incomplete. It now falls on you to demostrate why, or conceed defeat.

Inasmuch as this is not a contest, neither admissions of defeat, nor declarations of victory are pertinent--you need to get over yourself. You have made a claim--a set of them, actually. Those who make claims have the burden of proof, not those who are unwilling to accept the claims a priori. Simply attempting to set terms, and unreasonable, false terms, to describe my contribution does not make your contention valid. I made no proposal, just an observation--the observation that your feeble attempt at categorization, an attempt to label individuals based upon an arbitrary statement which purports to delimit all sources of theistic belief or the lack thereof, lacks at least one (and very likely, a good many more) valid descriptions of why one would or would not be a theist.

Quote:

I am indifferent about whether the sun will rise in India tomorrow. All the same, I believe it will. The indifference bears little relation to the belief.

This is nonsense. If you entertain a belief about sunrise in India, the mere possession of such a belief belies your contention of your indifference. In short, horseshit.

Quote:

I won't accept your new category into my theory until you give me reasons why I should.

I can give an equivalent assurance of my indifference as to what will or will not constitute your musing, which you gild by describing as a theory, as i am of what convictions you will or will not entertain.

Quote:

Your engagement in the discussion proves you wrong.

My engagement in this discussion is, by its content, proof of the contempt i have for the notion of theism. It in no way demonstrates an interest in your convictions.

0 Replies

Setanta,

I put this notion of categorizing non-theists forward because there is no clear definition of the word "atheist". On other threads, when asked what atheists are, no clear answer was possible.

So, I presumed to take on the task of clarifying what the actual systems of belief (or non-belief) actually are regardless of the terms used or misused to describe them.

I invited everybody to help me do this, but rather than be constructive you have simply chosen to be "contemptuous" of the whole exercise.

Call me crazy, but let me ask you again.

Why do you think "Contemptuous indifference" is a unique theological perspective that is not a sub-set of any of the non-theist kinds I have identified, and if you think there are others, can you help me with those also please?

Until now, theists and non-theists alike seem to have found the exercise useful.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Eorl wrote:

Quote:
I am indifferent about whether the sun will rise in India tomorrow. All the same, I believe it will. The indifference bears little relation to the belief.

This is nonsense. If you entertain a belief about sunrise in India, the mere possession of such a belief belies your contention of your indifference. In short, horseshit.

I believe that was, in fact, my point.

0 Replies

You are not asking me again, as you have not to this point asked me at all. You imperiously, and falsely, claimed that i had proposed that your "theory" is incomplete. I offered not such proposition. This is not a theory either, it is simply an attempt at categorization. Putting people and ideas into little, neatly-labelled boxes is an exercise which i view with contempt, a contempt equivalent to that which if feel toward theism.

I am contemptuous of theism because i consider it an exercise in superstitious fear. I consider a mania to categorize and to label as little better. One thinks to conquer the fear induced by a welter of uncertainty by reducing the sensory world to a set of descriptions.

The universe we inhabit is far more diverse and wonderful that the pathetic and fevered imaginations of the theists has ever been able to encompass. There are "far more things in heaven and earth" than will admitted to being boxed, labelled and safely shoved away in a drawer.

0 Replies

I said:

Quote:

I thought I would attempt to categorize the various positions (even though I won't be the first to try) but I'll need help. Please tell me which of these you are, or if you do not fit any of the following and why.

You said:

Quote:

You have left out one category: Those who don't give a flying **** . . .

Then you said:

Quote:

You are not asking me again, as you have not to this point asked me at all. You imperiously, and falsely, claimed that i had proposed that your "theory" is incomplete. I offered not such proposition.

HEELLLOOOO???

Then you said...

Quote:

I consider a mania to categorize and to label as little better.

You can resent being "boxed" all you like, the categorization is, in this case, an attempt to understand views that differ from our own and to clarify our own views for others who are interested. I'm surprised at your contempt and I don't yet understand it.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Setanta wrote:
Eorl wrote:
I am indifferent about whether the sun will rise in India tomorrow. All the same, I believe it will. The indifference bears little relation to the belief.

This is nonsense. If you entertain a belief about sunrise in India, the mere possession of such a belief belies your contention of your indifference. In short, horseshit.

I believe that was, in fact, my point.

Then a feeble point it is. I had expressed my indifference, and offered no belief on the topic. You, however, expressed an indifference, followed by an expression of belief on the topic--you belied your own statement.

Apples to oranges . . .

0 Replies

Hi guys, I think I found five more categories! :-D COOL!

But I'm not... not sure I wa ... I mean,
wad'ya

... think of ...

. . . Holy Sh!t ?! Shocked

<thunk>

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

I said:

Quote:
I thought I would attempt to categorize the various positions (even though I won't be the first to try) but I'll need help. Please tell me which of these you are, or if you do not fit any of the following and why.

You said:

Quote:
You have left out one category: Those who don't give a flying **** . . .

Then you said:

Quote:
You are not asking me again, as you have not to this point asked me at all. You imperiously, and falsely, claimed that i had proposed that your "theory" is incomplete. I offered not such proposition.

HEELLLOOOO???

You can shout hello to your heart's content, it will not alter this:

Quote:

Call me crazy, but let me ask you again.

Why do you think "Contemptuous indifference" is a unique theological perspective that is not a sub-set of any of the non-theist kinds I have identified, and if you think there are others, can you help me with those also please?

Calling you crazy would be an ad hominem, and would not contribute to this exchange. You are saying that you are asking me again, but you had never asked me before, which is why i wrote: "You are not asking me again, as you have not to this point asked me at all."

Prior to your having written the passage above which begins with "Call me crazy . . . " --you had written: "Setanta, you proposed my theory was incomplete. It now falls on you to demostrate why, or conceed defeat." Do you care to explain how that constitutes asking me a question? It is a rather snotty attempt to force terms of debate on me, and a miserable failure at that end, as the exchanges which have ensued demonstrate.

Quote:

Then you said...

Quote:
I consider a mania to categorize and to label as little better.

You can resent being "boxed" all you like, the categorization is, in this case, an attempt to understand views that differ from our own and to clarify our own views for others who are interested. I'm surprised at your contempt and I don't yet understand it.

I have no personal feeling about someone else's mania to categorize--so there is nothing here i resent. I am contemptuous of it because i consider it a fear-driven exercise, an attempt to reduce a vast and dismayingly complex universe to neat, digestible portions. Such an exercise inevitably allows worlds of meaning and nuance to fall by the wayside. It is intellectually dangersous as well, because when any part of the system of categorization fails, the entire house of cards comes tumbling down.

0 Replies

ROFL CodeBorg ! Laughing

0 Replies

Categorizing Non-Theists

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know