Still Not Ready To Declare Myself An Atheist

[Galien]

I dont see it as something I need to get ready for..I simply find it absurd...I find Darwinian evolution absurd also as an explanation for how humans got here..

 

Christianity repulses me on many levels but atheism seems absurd also...

 

I am not going to reject God just because I reject the ridiculous, horrible Biblical god..

 

why get ready or be ready...who cares what other ex christians do? Part of my problem was caring what others thought or believed...I should not have followed Jesus and I will not be following ex Christians who become atheists now..

 

I follow my own heart and mind..it tells me religion is crap..but so is atheism...

 

Fair enough, you have to make up your own mind. Like you I just don't know, but I'm over worrying about it or even caring about it. Now I just live

[par4dcourse]

 

I follow my own heart and mind..it tells me religion is crap..but so is atheism...

I'd prefer my lack of belief in a deity not be called crap. Do your thing, I'll do mine.

[Resilient]

I am just one of those people that NEED a label. It is my way of communicating about myself to myself and I have a great need to belong to a larger group or tribe that I can identify with, so I look for labels I share in common with other folks. I feel lost and adrift without labels. A label is some sort of anchor point for me. I don't find it constricting at all. Where it is too narrow, I add descriptive language to broaden it. Where it is too all encompassing, I look for subcategories/subgroups to belong to. It is the way I NEED to roll. I don't need you to do the same to validate my position. Be how you need to be. I will be how I need to be. It is the way I write my story and feel comfortable with myself.

 

I lost my faith in God. It wasn't my choice to disbelieve. I could go to church and pretend to believe, but it wouldn't make me a believer. I could go to seminary, but it wouldn't make me a believer. I could listen to my broken hearted mother sob because I am not a believer, it wouldn't make me a believer. I went for about a week as an Agnostic. I felt I didn't know if there was a god and that was as intellectually honest as I could be at that point. I didn't feel like I could become an Atheist. They all talk about logical fallacies and science and evolution and I didn't know where I stood on all that. Also I thought all atheists were mean spirited, closed minded people because of the few I had heard here or there on Twitter or whatnot. That made me not want to belong to a group with them. The more I searched the more I found people who called themselves atheists who truly hope there is a god so that they could make sense of their feelings and their world like me. Mostly I have heard Atheists just want to believe in the truth. Being an atheist just means you have a lack of belief in any god. Not wanting to be in a group with them didn't matter on the day when I realized that TODAY I lack belief in god. I felt my being unsure of a belief or lack of enough knowledge to say I believed in a god had tipped toward a lack of belief on that particular day and thus I was an Atheist on that particular day. I could hope for a god and seek a god, but until I believe in a god, I had to admit I lacked belief in god and therefore was Atheist for that day. You may think I am silly, ridiculous even for me to think this way, but I am seeking an accurate, intellectually honest label, so it all works out for me. You can choose any label or ambiuity or lack of label you want, you will still be alright by me. I am just describing my process in case it might help someone in their process.

 

 

It sounds like you're rejecting the label of atheist because the connotations you associate with it don't match your view of reality. Nothing wrong with that. I consider myself an atheist, but it's only a point of identity for me in reaction to christianity. For actually living my life other than that, I'm not consciously living with the idea that no gods exist, I just ignore the topic and consider it irrelevant to my life. I even do a lot of "spiritual" stuff, like mediation, and talking to my dead friend's spirit (even though I'm a materialist and don't really believe he's actually around to listen) because it makes life work better for me. In a reductionist sense, it's probably "just brain chemistry", but that's ok. It works for me.

 

If you feel like you need a word, there's a whole range of similar ones you could consider. Like apatheist, non-theist, pan[en]theist, naturalist, humanist....

It's just a word, really. Individuals form their own opinions, and we go with what feels right to us. No wrong or right, just no jesus.

There are all types of people going by the label Atheist. It doesn't mean you can stereotype us and we will be ok with it. Stereotyping is never a good idea anyway. It's like racism and sexism. So is saying all Christians are stupid, or atheism is crap. It doesn't help promote understanding or peace or unity.

 

Today, I am a spiritual Agnostic Atheist Humanist Secular Buddhist. It helps me to know this lol because I can google aspects of what I believe so I can see where I fit in with others to see if I would play nicely with others or where I differ from them and where additional communication might be needed to explain what I believe. It helps me navigate these forums and talk about what I believe with others, but mostly it helps me find a place to start from, from which I can hone my own personal beliefs into the rich tapestry of my life. Since my spiritual life and what I believe and lack belief in is still number one in my life, I am more settled, more hopeful even working within this framework. This is what makes me tick.

 

Rez

[Storm]

Geezer, thanks for your candidness. I appreciate the many words of wisdom you have shared and I just want to put my two cents in here. I believe that understanding the reality that we don't possess the ability to know everything is the beginning of true wisdom. I certainly don't see it as a sign of weakness, especially in the context of such a profound topic as the supernatural and reality. Live your life, do what you do and we will enjoy your viewpoint as long as you're willing to share it.

[Geezer]

Geezer, thanks for your candidness. I appreciate the many words of wisdom you have shared and I just want to put my two cents in here. I believe that understanding the reality that we don't possess the ability to know everything is the beginning of true wisdom. I certainly don't see it as a sign of weakness, especially in the context of such a profound topic as the supernatural and reality. Live your life, do what you do and we will enjoy your viewpoint as long as you're willing to share it.

 

Thank you for your kind words.

[antix]

I've noticed that I'm happier thinking of myself as an agnostic than an atheist.  I never realized before but saying "nobody knows and nobody can know" is actually the most respectful attitude we can take towards God.

 

That is basically my view anymore. I think there is something and also something spiritual, but I have no real clue what.

[gall]

I've noticed that I'm happier thinking of myself as an agnostic than an atheist.  I never realized before but saying "nobody knows and nobody can know" is actually the most respectful attitude we can take towards God.

 

Don't you mean other peoples belief in god.

 

I don't think my attitude "towards" god matters since he isn't real. I do think my attitude towards what others believe does matter because that directly relates to how we all interact as groups in society.

[Lerk]

 

I've noticed that I'm happier thinking of myself as an agnostic than an atheist.  I never realized before but saying "nobody knows and nobody can know" is actually the most respectful attitude we can take towards God.

 

Don't you mean other peoples belief in god.

 

I don't think my attitude "towards" god matters since he isn't real. I do think my attitude towards what others believe does matter because that directly relates to how we all interact as groups in society.

 

 

I'm with Gall here. I can be respectful of people who believe in a god, simply because I know I once believed in a certain one and that I was honest, though mistaken, in that belief.

 

Declaring oneself an atheist traditionally was not a declaration of 100% certainty, it was simply a declaration that, for all practical purposes, there's no reason to act as if there are any gods, because there's no evidence of any specific god or gods. The word "agnostic" came into use to mean the same thing because the word "atheist" had gained a bad connotation in most people's minds.

 

There is a scale called the "spectrum of theistic probability". (This is defined by Richard Dawkins.) It's a better way to express where we are on that scale. It is defined as follows:

 

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Leaning towards Agnosticism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

 

(From the Wikipedia page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability)

 

Even then, it's too simple. I'll call myself a 6.5.

[directionless]

...

There is a scale called the "spectrum of theistic probability". (This is defined by Richard Dawkins.) It's a better way to express where we are on that scale. It is defined as follows:

• Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
• De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
• Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
• Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
• Leaning towards Agnosticism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
• De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
• Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

(From the Wikipedia page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability)

 

Even then, it's too simple. I'll call myself a 6.5.

It seems like a person's answer depends on the definition of God. The more detailed the definition the more I doubt.

 

It might be better to ask specific questions like do you believe your individual consciousness continues after you die? Asking do you believe in God can mean different things to different people.

[sdelsolray]

 

...

There is a scale called the "spectrum of theistic probability". (This is defined by Richard Dawkins.) It's a better way to express where we are on that scale. It is defined as follows:

•  
• Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
• De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
• Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
• Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
• Leaning towards Agnosticism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
• De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
• Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

(From the Wikipedia page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability)

 

Even then, it's too simple. I'll call myself a 6.5.

It seems like a person's answer depends on the definition of God. The more detailed the definition the more I doubt.

 

It might be better to ask specific questions like do you believe your individual consciousness continues after you die? Asking do you believe in God can mean different things to different people.

 

Good point.  Using Dawkin's list, someone might be a #6 with regards to a Deistic God, a #7 for the Christian God or a #3 for Spinoza's God.  That's because the definitions of those three Gods are different.

[Joshpantera]

I'm assuming that Dawkins means God as in Yahweh or something similar. 

 

The funny thing I'm noticing about these atheism threads is that many people are forming a label of, well, declaring no label. lol

 

No label is becoming a category unto itself because then you get labeled as, no label. That being said, it seems there's no escape from labeling any which way we turn. But I like to look at it in the way that Bruce Lee approached traditional martial arts. 

 

"Having no way as way, having no limitation as limitation." 

 

It wasn't that he didn't make use of traditional "ways," it's that Lee used any one of them as a tool on an as needed basis and mixed the ways up - very improvisational. I love the Game of Death where he climbs from level to level defeating different people who were devoted to one specific "way." He'd adapt to the confrontation and then zero in on the limitations of the specific "way" of each level and then defeat it by exposing it's limitation. 

 

So Lee did have a way because having a way is unavoidable. It's just that his way was the way of having no one specific way and therefore he had no limitation. 

 

This seems to ring true with respect to the growing urge to go as unlabeled in the theist and atheist debate. 

 

It seems that in doing so you then take on the label of unlabeled, just as Lee had the way of no way.

 

And it may be just as powerful in the realm of mental debate as Lee's "no way" turned out to be in the realm of physical confrontation. Getting too restricted to hard theism or hard atheism is a down fall because you take on a burden of proof either way, a burden of proof that is impossible to carry either way in the general sense of it all.

 

• Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."

• Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

 

And the realm of in between the two extremes described above is the realm of many different ways, many labels, and a lot of diversity of thought, etc. If by no label people mean something like a person who could be atheist, agnostic, pantheist, and panentheist all at the same time and in certain senses, then I suppose I'm unlabeled as well....