You aren't a Christian, so what are you?

[Blamtasticful]

I am sure there is a thread somewhere that has addressed a similar question but this would be the place to bring up the topic again for fresh insight if that is the case. I think most people here have a basic understanding that being an atheist is just lacking a belief in one idea. This, however, does not in any way necessitate conformity to a standard set of alternate worldviews and philosophies. This is why we can ACTUALLY DEOMNSTRATE that atheism is not a religion or belief system. So it would seem to me that asking what one should believe or what range of worldviews are the best ones and why that is the case is a rather interesting question. 

 

For a little context this question comes in a response to what I consider to be good criticism of logical positivism. There are of course rebuttals to these rebuttals that update Logical Positivism to a more nuanced and less absolute view of knowledge in general. I think the problem is that there seems to be a lack of a comprehensive way of approaching reality that satisfies every objection without making some sort of concession.

 

So below are a few approaches that I tend to look to when it comes to approaching life in general and I would love your thoughts and feelings on these ideas as well as your own suggestions.

 

1. Methodological Naturalism, Pragmatism (my go to worldview), Moral Realism (as apposed to Moral Anti-realism), Existentialism, Preference Hedonism, Individual liberty, self-authoring, Utilitarianism, and of course with some exceptions Empiricism and Rationalism. 

 

Here are worldviews I tend to discount:

 

Idealism, Anti-moralism, Logical Positivism, Deontology, Divine Command Theory, Post-Modernist Continental philosophy, Asceticism, Stoicism and even Determinism.

 

If some of my personal preferences end up becoming more contentious then it may end up being worth exploring on another thread so consider this the starting point. So what do think?

[hockeyfan70]

I've started looking into Stoicism recently, and I actually find myself drawn to it. Why do you discount it?

[LogicalFallacy]

1 hour ago, Burnedout said:

I just tell them I am a cynic.  They then scratch their head and then when they ask me what I mean, I tell them I trust vitually nothing.  That includes religion, government, banking, education, corporate, and anything else that is an institution.  Then when they question me further, I ask them why I should.  When they try to say, I then ask them how they are sure they are being told the truth.  

 

Do you trust yourself?

[older]

I'm not interested in labels. I don't like "atheist" because that is so often used as a pejorative. When pressed, I simply say that I'm not religious; and if pressed further, that I don't believe in gods or spirits. Labels for other belief systems are confining and can put someone into a category into which he or she doesn't completely fit. To someone who would ask me, "What are you?" I'd just say, "Why does it matter?"

[LogicalFallacy]

I tend to agree with Older. Labels can be very problematic and can lead to identity politics. In saying that they can also be useful for short hand as long as the communicating parties have a mutual understanding of what is being said.

 

I would say I'm atheist, but not I am an atheist. Here in lies an important distinction - one describes, very concisely, a position on a singular subject, the other implies an identity.

 

For the same reason I'm not a humanist, feminist, thisist or thatist.

 

I simply hold a variety of positions, subject to change, on a vast number of topics. I'm not sure if defining exact worldviews is necessary, but I'm 'fairly young' as far as investigating worldviews etc.

 

If you need a label that's backed by science and is unlikely to change say you are a human  

[★ Citsonga ★]

I don't care much for labels, either. I'm just an honest guy who works hard to take care of my family. I just happen to no longer believe in religion, but that alone doesn't define me.

 

[Blamtasticful]

3 hours ago, hockeyfan70 said:

I've started looking into Stoicism recently, and I actually find myself drawn to it. Why do you discount it?

 

I find it personally to be too ascetic in its solutions. I am more sympathetic to Epicureanism than Stoicism. 

[Insightful]

3 hours ago, hockeyfan70 said:

I've started looking into Stoicism recently, and I actually find myself drawn to it. 

 

Hey Hockey!

 

Me too.  I absolutely love the meditations of Marcus Aurelius.  I do not find it ascetic.  I actually see it as a very positive, rational, responsibile, and just plain awesome take on existence.

[ag_NO_stic]

Frankly? I am opposed to over labeling people/things. I am happy to state things I do or do not believe in (for example I am interested in the concept of pantheism at the moment), but I would not say "I am a pantheist." I hate label politics lately in general, who I am is more complex than a series of labels like "a straight, white, female, agnostic, libertarian, employee of ___, daughter of ___, cynic." I just think it boxes people in and links them to other worldviews that they may not accept or believe. I think it's possible to be comfortable with who I am and have security in my identity without a long list of labels.

[MOHO]

45 minutes ago, ag_NO_stic said:

Frankly? I am opposed to over labeling people/things. I am happy to state things I do or do not believe in (for example I am interested in the concept of pantheism at the moment), but I would not say "I am a pantheist." I hate label politics lately in general, who I am is more complex than a series of labels like "a straight, white, female, agnostic, libertarian, employee of ___, daughter of ___, cynic." I just think it boxes people in and links them to other worldviews that they may not accept or believe. I think it's possible to be comfortable with who I am and have security in my identity without a long list of labels.

 

Me too. Hate labels. They are all too often incorrect anyway.

 

For example Mrs. MOHO firmly believes that all of those who do not believe in god are left-wing, snowflake, big-government, LGBT huggers and that atheists are somewhere "below" them.

 

 

[Blamtasticful]

To be honest I think saying I don't like labels is a lame cop-out.

 

If we consider ourselves to be smarter than theists than we should do better. 

 

I am working on defending moral realism. I think morally actually exists and that god has nothing to do with it.

 

I believe in some sort of version of a democratic and capitalistic society based on a secular constitution than can be tweaked with socialistic elements. 

 

I am adamantly anti-censorship.

 

I believe in the scientific method and that science needs to be valued and funded more.

 

I think that it is important to create a positive narrative for our lives. We already create default narratives based on skewed perceptions of our lives so we might as well focus that tendency toward something important and meaningful.

 

I think we need to try harder guys lol.

 

If we don't stake out positions we let the parties of god do it for us and we allow them to put forth their pro-active agenda. I will not simply be a reactionary.

 

If your opinions change so be it but I will state what I think is true today. 

[ag_NO_stic]

17 hours ago, Blamtasticful said:

To be honest I think saying I don't like labels is a lame cop-out.

 

If we consider ourselves to be smarter than theists than we should do better. 

 

I am working on defending moral realism. I think morally actually exists and that god has nothing to do with it.

 

I believe in some sort of version of a democratic and capitalistic society based on a secular constitution than can be tweaked with socialistic elements. 

 

I am adamantly anti-censorship.

 

I believe in the scientific method and that science needs to be valued and funded more.

 

I think that it is important to create a positive narrative for our lives. We already create default narratives based on skewed perceptions of our lives so we might as well focus that tendency toward something important and meaningful.

 

I think we need to try harder guys lol.

 

If we don't stake out positions we let the parties of god do it for us and we allow them to put forth their pro-active agenda. I will not simply be a reactionary.

 

If your opinions change so be it but I will state what I think is true today. 

 

I have nothing against you, personally, but I don't really give a fuck if you think it's a "lame cop-out." I don't consider myself to be "smarter than theists," I consider myself more "aware of my indoctrination" and perhaps "more courageous for being willing to face hell and the loss of relationships to find the truth." I think labeling other people's beliefs as "lame" or "a cop-out" gets people on the defensive and hinders discussion. The things that you listed are things you believe not labels, so it doesn't even apply to what I said anyway. 

 

I too believe adamantly in anti-censorship.

I believe if we allow ideas to be freely discussed than the need to say extreme or "offensive" things will wane and we can get to the meat of discussions.

I am most concerned with this "us versus them" mentality that bipartisanship creates. I think this mentality has exploded, we have races against each other, genders against each other, political parties against each other, religious versus nonreligious, straight vs gay (and LGBTQ)......Each side needs to approach the social discussion with some desire to understand the other side. It's the only way anything will get done.

 

I am largely tired of everyone firmly believing that everything they believe is right and that others are wrong. It's emotionally and mentally draining. 

 

[MOHO]

18 hours ago, Blamtasticful said:

To be honest I think saying I don't like labels is a lame cop-out.

 

"To be honest" Are you usually not honest, Blamtasciful?

 

"saying I don't like labels is a lame cop-out." No, it's a normal reaction to those who use labels as a means of placing individuals into groups so that individuals can be treated as a group - mostly for social/political purposes. 

 

Yes, we would be well served by standing up to religious oppression. Let me clarify this: I mean any attempt, for any reason, of utilizing scripture, or anything else that cannot be proven,  to control anyone else. No labels needed. See?

 

 

[MOHO]

38 minutes ago, ag_NO_stic said:

I am largely tired of everyone firmly believing that everything they believe is right and that others are wrong. It's emotionally and mentally draining.

 

And abusive.

 

You Go, Girl!

[mich]

@ag_NO_stic , LOVE the 6/9 cartoon!

[florduh]

Labels are largely useless because virtually everyone has their own idea of what any particular label means. We tend to see caricatures rather than people once we have a label for them.

 

[sdelsolray]

I've usually responded to such questions (e.g., "What are you?") with the canned response, "None of the above".  It's a bit of a joke, and it can stimulate further conversation, such as:

 

Person:  "What do you mean by that?"

Me:  "Make a list and place 'none of the above' at the bottom of your list.  Most likely, my choice will be at the bottom of your list."

[ConsiderTheSource]

On 8/7/2017 at 10:14 AM, MOHO said:

 

Me too. Hate labels. They are all too often incorrect anyway.

 

For example Mrs. MOHO firmly believes that all of those who do not believe in god are left-wing, snowflake, big-government, LGBT huggers and that atheists are somewhere "below" them.

 

 

Tell Mrs. Moho that this father will continue to love and hug his daughter and that I have no intention stop just so she can feel better about HER religion.

[Blamtasticful]

9 hours ago, MOHO said:

 

"To be honest" Are you usually not honest, Blamtasciful?

 

"saying I don't like labels is a lame cop-out." No, it's a normal reaction to those who use labels as a means of placing individuals into groups so that individuals can be treated as a group - mostly for social/political purposes. 

 

Yes, we would be well served by standing up to religious oppression. Let me clarify this: I mean any attempt, for any reason, of utilizing scripture, or anything else that cannot be proven,  to control anyone else. No labels needed. See?

 

 

 

Fine do you prefer the phrase to be blunt? That's a facetious point. Perhaps you also like jumping on people who use the phrase "oh god no."

 

Ohhhh I don't wanna be laaaaaabeled! That's how the world works. There is room for nuance but if I was called socially liberal that is a helpful label. If I am called an atheist that is a helpful label.

 

 If people say I am outgoing or a saver versus a spender, or quiet, or have a high sex drive these things are accurate. To be blunt being an ex-Christian isn't enough. 

 

5 hours ago, florduh said:

Labels are largely useless because virtually everyone has their own idea of what any particular label means. We tend to see caricatures rather than people once we have a label for them.

 

 

So are we actually taking the position that Christian's take when they complain about us criticizing them? No. Christian IS a label and an important one I might add. It isn't a caricature. Are we all simply relativists here? 

[ag_NO_stic]

I think you're missing my point. Saying "I'm an atheist" is no more helpful than saying "I'm not convinced there is a god." Some labels are necessary, sure. As a female, I have various gender-specific needs....but what would be the point of labeling yourself verses discussing beliefs?

[florduh]

On 8/3/2017 at 0:49 PM, Blamtasticful said:

I would love your thoughts and feelings on these ideas as well as your own suggestions.

Well, THAT was a bit misleading!

[Blamtasticful]

10 minutes ago, florduh said:

Well, THAT was a bit misleading!

 

Wasn't trying to be; sometimes things come across harsher online than intended. Besides I think in fairness the response has been less suggestions and more of a belief that the initial idea isn't important. I think one person mentioned Stoicism. I am just standing up for my idea. Would you like to offer an opinion on whether it is strange to reject labels if we criticize the label Christian? I just don't see why labels are bad except for ones that are by their very nature pejorative. Besides who said you can't choose your own label? I never said you couldn't.

 

14 minutes ago, ag_NO_stic said:

I think you're missing my point. Saying "I'm an atheist" is no more helpful than saying "I'm not convinced there is a god." Some labels are necessary, sure. As a female, I have various gender-specific needs....but what would be the point of labeling yourself verses discussing beliefs?

 

I think labels can clarify. Haven't you ever been frustrated by someone defending a god-belief while refusing to identify their personal position? If for example one is a moral relativist then using the terms "good" or "evil" can completely derail a good conversation because both parties don't accept those assumptions. We label for the purpose of identifying and organizing; you can change a label later but surely you must start somewhere. I think saying I don't want to be labeled is like saying I don't want to be judged. Maybe it's just my personality type but I say bring it on I can defend myself. 

[ag_NO_stic]

1 hour ago, Blamtasticful said:

 

Wasn't trying to be; sometimes things come across harsher online than intended. Besides I think in fairness the response has been less suggestions and more of a belief that the initial idea isn't important. I think one person mentioned Stoicism. I am just standing up for my idea. Would you like to offer an opinion on whether it is strange to reject labels if we criticize the label Christian? I just don't see why labels are bad except for ones that are by their very nature pejorative. Besides who said you can't choose your own label? I never said you couldn't.

 

 

I think labels can clarify. Haven't you ever been frustrated by someone defending a god-belief while refusing to identify their personal position? If for example one is a moral relativist then using the terms "good" or "evil" can completely derail a good conversation because both parties don't accept those assumptions. We label for the purpose of identifying and organizing; you can change a label later but surely you must start somewhere. I think saying I don't want to be labeled is like saying I don't want to be judged. Maybe it's just my personality type but I say bring it on I can defend myself. 

 

I feel like you're confusing "labels" with "definitions." Using words like "good" and "evil" are not referencing people so much as abstract concepts and warrant a clear definition. If you ARE using them to label people, I'm not interested. Also, I'm not saying "I don't want to be labeled" (though I don't really), I'm saying I'm not interested in doing that to others. It does nothing that a discussion of ideas can't do, arguably with less efficiency.

[MOHO]

14 hours ago, Blamtasticful said:

Wasn't trying to be; sometimes things come across harsher online than intended.

 

" Ohhhh I don't wanna be laaaaaabeled! "

 

I think that came across just exactly how you intended - in a tone that you chose.

[Blamtasticful]

56 minutes ago, MOHO said:

 

" Ohhhh I don't wanna be laaaaaabeled! "

 

I think that came across just exactly how you intended - in a tone that you chose.

 

Wow I didn't realize how sensitive people were to being challenged on their points. Again how many people actually gave suggestions encouraged in the original post instead of simply denying the importance of the question? I guess it came across harsher then intended; it was just an attempt to hone in on what seemed to be a superficial point by re-phrasing it in a way that illustrated some of it's inherent naïveté. Sorry this conversation devolved to this point I was hoping it would turn more profound. If you wish to blame that all on my tone so be it but I think that isn't really quite fair. Hey on the Brightside at least you can't call me an asshole without labeling me . Again sorry about the road leading to nowhere productive. I wasn't planning on arguing semantic points on the difference between labels, descriptions, and definitions.