DayLight Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 When I was a Christian, in my mind I divided the world into two groups: Believers and Atheists. So, somewhere down the line on my path of deconversion from Christianity, I was still dividing the world that way in my mind and somehow I had this idea in my head that believers can be silly (and stubborn) and atheists are thinkers, they are the ones who could see reality for what it is. I was trying to see where I fit in. When I talked to some atheists (very scientific minded people), I realized that they don't consider things that they can't detect with their five senses. To me, that's going to an opposite extreme. So I learned that the people I could communicate with are more like philosophers (and lightly spiritual people) - these people mix science with possibilities and imagination. I like a mix of science with philosophy with some spiritual beliefs mixed in. So I've learned that when you become an ex-Christian, you don't necessary become an atheist, but you could also be a mix of many other things. Because the perception of reality is like 50 shades of grey, it's all over the place. Some believe just a tiny bit, some more, and some go to the extreme. Some don't believe just a tiny bit, some more, and some go to the extremes. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator TrueFreedom Posted February 19, 2015 Moderator Share Posted February 19, 2015 You find a lot of logical positivists in today's atheist circles, but logical positivism is not a requirement in order to disbelieve in gods who are involved in the world. There are plenty of buddhists, new agers, and even Christians who are atheists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Joshpantera Posted February 19, 2015 Moderator Share Posted February 19, 2015 I corrected what I think is a misuse of the word atheism on the other thread. I can see your point though, and it's a good one to consider. Although atheism is not strictly materialist. You have all these people around who don't believe that mythology is literally true. They don't believe in gods but they may have spiritual feelings about nature and existence itself. Ex-C has many Pantheists and Panentheists. There's a middle ground between theism and atheism that many deconverts see as fitting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellinas Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 The trick is to be what you are, not what the example of others makes you think you ought to be. Also, and from the opposite end (so to speak) to not assume that one's own viewpoint is so automatically correct that others should follow suit. With that approach, I find the question of where you "fit in" rather fades into insignificance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DayLight Posted February 22, 2015 Author Share Posted February 22, 2015 The trick is to be what you are, not what the example of others makes you think you ought to be. Also, and from the opposite end (so to speak) to not assume that one's own viewpoint is so automatically correct that others should follow suit. With that approach, I find the question of where you "fit in" rather fades into insignificance. People like to know where they belong. So that's why they want to know which group they belong to. It's also interesting that we like to know which decease we have (if we do have some symptoms). Even if we heard that there is no cure. It's like it's not enough for us to just experience the decease, somehow we want to know which one it is. It's like things become clearer or something once you put a label on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Joshpantera Posted February 23, 2015 Moderator Share Posted February 23, 2015 That's a good point. What I have found is that I fit several labels, but not entirely. I'm agnostic, atheist, and pantheist all at once. I don't know whether any Gods exist, so I lack any positive belief in Gods due to the lack of compelling evidence, and yet I understand the Gods of mythology to be metaphorical and symbolic for the various levels of existence from the elements to the planets to the whole. This isn't precisely any one label alone, and yet each label is fitting to some degree. Applying the Bruce Lee philosophy would render a scenario where each label has some limitation. By taking the best of each label and disregarding the rest, perhaps we can avoid the limitations involved with each label. Having no label, as your label, having no limitation as your limitation? I think there's a new frontier forming in terms of labels and labeling. In the past it was a certain way. But with the advent of the web and global communication people seem to be mixing it up a lot more now than previously when we were more or less subject to regional thought patterns and didn't necessarily compare ideas as much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellinas Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 People like to know where they belong. So that's why they want to know which group they belong to. I suppose some do, some don't. Never really been an issue for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreeThinkerNZ Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Some people are only atheist about specific god(s) or types of gods. Others are atheist about all gods and concepts of gods. If you fall into the first group then you can be a pantheist and an atheist. But I think that is a confusing use of the word atheist. I find it much simpler to be an atheist about all gods and concepts of gods. That definition of atheism leaves no room for pantheism, and sees pantheism as a form of theism. It also says people are either theist (in some form) or atheist. To me that seems a much clearer use of the terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deidre Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Yes, the world is filled with labeling. I don't like labels, myself. They get in the way of who we truly could be without them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 I tend to agree with DayLight, plus lables are an important part of language. That is how we have evolved. Being able to differentiate things, while out of fashion in some urban areas by college kids, is actually what has helped hthe genus homo make tools, find food, and disseminate that information on to our offspring. To the OP, I think if you look at definitions, see if you fit one or more for now, it might help you out. At least it would help you find some more reading material. But the continuum starting at pantheism, working towards monotheism and finally to atheism as an ultimate soaring humanistic end, is very 19th-century. And I'm even a damned atheist saying it. Most atheists are agnostic atheists. I fall into that camp. But you can be atheistic to deities, while being panentheistic or some other form of spirituality. As an aside, the Romans criticized the Christians for being "atheist" to their gods. Which they were. This becomes especially true for a theistic system like Christianity and Islam where belief in the right deity in the correct way using the correct name has such significance. Everyone else is functionally an atheist, since there is in fact only one God to either the Christians or the Muslims. Especially, if you start withdrawing from beliefs in demons' interference, something I had begun to do once I discovered sleep paralysis as an explanation back in 2003. In short, we're all atheistic to some things. Some of us hold some pretty strong spiritual beliefs, some of us, myself included say we don't know and lean towards we cannot truly know. I will say this, though. There's plenty of secular and humanistic philosophy, and quite diverse. Not the monolithic diametric opposition that the Christians probably told you that it was: "Those are commies, we're the good guys," type thinking. I've known atheist libertarians for years, for instance. You've got everything from that eastern mystical stuff like Sam Harris, to your traditional rational materialist types like Ayn Rand and others. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DayLight Posted February 24, 2015 Author Share Posted February 24, 2015 Yes, the world is filled with labeling. I don't like labels, myself. They get in the way of who we truly could be without them. I think "labeling" is kind of like "compressing" in the computer world. A computer can take a lot of information and compress it into a a few pieces of information. But it still represents the entire information. If the person doesn't give a label of himself we would have to start from scratch and ask all kinds of questions until we formulate an idea of who this person is and what his beliefs are. But if the person gives me the label of himself, I could just save all that time and focus my questions only on that specific area. So, labels speed up the "getting to know you" process. It's like a "short hand" of a writer. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreeThinkerNZ Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Yes, the world is filled with labeling. I don't like labels, myself. They get in the way of who we truly could be without them. I think "labeling" is kind of like "compressing" in the computer world. A computer can take a lot of information and compress it into a a few pieces of information. But it still represents the entire information. If the person doesn't give a label of himself we would have to start from scratch and ask all kinds of questions until we formulate an idea of who this person is and what his beliefs are. But if the person gives me the label of himself, I could just save all that time and focus my questions only on that specific area. So, labels speed up the "getting to know you" process. It's like a "short hand" of a writer. Well said. I also think labels enhance our ability to know if someone's view has changed over time. They make it easier to notice if someone is being inconsistent in their statements. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Joshpantera Posted February 25, 2015 Moderator Share Posted February 25, 2015 Some people are only atheist about specific god(s) or types of gods. Others are atheist about all gods and concepts of gods. If you fall into the first group then you can be a pantheist and an atheist. But I think that is a confusing use of the word atheist. I find it much simpler to be an atheist about all gods and concepts of gods. That definition of atheism leaves no room for pantheism, and sees pantheism as a form of theism. It also says people are either theist (in some form) or atheist. To me that seems a much clearer use of the terms. Natural Pantheism is, as Dawkins described, "sexed up atheism." There's no God, just the natural whole. Religious pantheists are different and fall into the theistic belief category of Panentheism. I wouldn't have claimed Pantheism if it was addressed to the supernatural. To understand modern Pantheism see below: http://www.pantheism.net/manifest.htm The basic concepts comprise: Reverence for Nature and the wider Universe. Active respect and care for the rights of all humans and other living beings. Celebration or our lives in our bodies on this beautiful earth as a joy and a privilege. Strong naturalism, without belief in supernatural realms, afterlives, beings or forces. Respect for reason, evidence and the scientific method as our best ways of understanding nature and the Universe. Promotion of religious tolerance, freedom of religion and complete separation of state and religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted February 25, 2015 Super Moderator Share Posted February 25, 2015 "I wish you could divorce that wife beating husband of yours, but as a good Catholic I can't recommend it." \ "So you're an atheist? Why do you hate God?" Labels could be a helpful shortcut were it not for the fact that people see what they want to see anyway. Another problem with labels is that people can adopt a label and then they feel they must conform to what that label means to them rather than having the freedom to just be who they are, and to think. I see labels as a hindrance to those who adopt them and those who would hope to understand those labeled people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Joshpantera Posted February 25, 2015 Moderator Share Posted February 25, 2015 Yes, the world is filled with labeling. I don't like labels, myself. They get in the way of who we truly could be without them. I think "labeling" is kind of like "compressing" in the computer world. A computer can take a lot of information and compress it into a a few pieces of information. But it still represents the entire information. If the person doesn't give a label of himself we would have to start from scratch and ask all kinds of questions until we formulate an idea of who this person is and what his beliefs are. But if the person gives me the label of himself, I could just save all that time and focus my questions only on that specific area. So, labels speed up the "getting to know you" process. It's like a "short hand" of a writer. Well said. I also think labels enhance our ability to know if someone's view has changed over time. They make it easier to notice if someone is being inconsistent in their statements. Yes, it goes both ways. Labels can bring confusion as florduh points out, but at the same time they're useful too. The way I see the middle ground is that the label gives you all the general information, but then you can fine tune what type of so and so label the person is from there, because there's usually variety within any given label. Take atheism, for instance. With a few questions you can assess what type of atheist some one is. If it's confusing to say atheist because of existing stereotypes, then specify at the outset what type of atheist. I could tell someone I'm an agnostic - atheist and cut the confusion right away. If they ask what that is I can quickly educate them. I don't know if any Gods exist and I don't believe they do without compelling evidence. I could then ask what compelling evidence they have to offer and give them a taste of just how difficult it actually is to try and establish the existence of Gods. This isn't hypothetical either, I've performed the above scenario on people just to see how they'll respond. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 I agree with what others on here have said. First of all, DayLight and others, I'm going to expose my bias here: I value personal autonomy over all else. I think part of one's personhood is the definitions one can ascribe to oneself. But definitions have meanings, and are only useful if others understand them. If I just up and say I'm a humper-hooperdink and that's how I define myself, nobody is going to know what that means, and the label's function is null. Where labels go wrong are in cases where someone sticks a label to you, or, as Florduh said, someone takes your label and by extension attaches all kinds of extra meaning to it. That's a misuse of the label, and sometimes it requires that we mention again what the label actually means. I think "conforming to the label" can get complicated. After all, if you see yourself as a humanist, and so go out and start reading humanist literature, you may adopt some things you formerly hadn't, and wouldn't have, if you hadn't gone down that path. Is that really conforming to the label, or just exposure? Now, if one were to just pick it up and go with the party line, I think you might have just that problem. But somehow I doubt most of us are likely to do this, being ex-Christians, especially those of us from particularly dogmatic sects. Once bitten thrice shy in the dogma department, and all that. I'm definitely all in on the "sexed up atheism" part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penguin Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 The only reason I have any labels is the attempt to describe my philosophies and other attributes succinctly to others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Joshpantera Posted February 27, 2015 Moderator Share Posted February 27, 2015 “Let us remind ourselves of the terminology. A theist believes in a supernatural intelligence who, in addition to his main work of creating the universe in the first place, is still around to oversee and influence the subsequent fate of his initial creation. In many theistic belief systems, the deity is intimately involved in human affairs. He answers prayers; forgives or punishes sins; intervenes in the world by performing miracles; frets about good and bad deeds, and knows when we do them (or even think about doing them). A deist, too, believes in a supernatural intelligence, but one whose activities were confined to setting up the laws that govern the universe in the first place. The deist God never intervenes thereafter, and certainly has no specific interest in human affairs. Pantheists don't believe in a supernatural God at all, but use the word God as a non-supernatural synonym for Nature, or for the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs its workings. Deists differ from theists in that their God does not answer prayers, is not interested in sins or confessions, does not read our thoughts and does not intervene with capricious miracles. Deists differ from pantheists in that the deist God is some kind of cosmic intelligence, rather than the pantheist's metaphoric or poetic synonym for the laws of the universe. Pantheism is sexed-up atheism. Deism is watered-down theism.” ― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion So once again, I'm agnostic, atheist, and pantheist all at the same time and they are consistent with one another. Because I don't know if any Gods exist, I don't believe they exist without credible evidence, and the only source or creator known to us at this time is simply natural existence itself, the universe, a possible multiverse behind it, etc., and off into an infinite regress of natural existence giving rise to forms and absorbing them back in over, and over, and over....... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator TrueFreedom Posted February 27, 2015 Moderator Share Posted February 27, 2015 I'm agnostic, atheist, and pantheist all at the same time and they are consistent with one another. I feel most comfortable with those labels as well, though I prefer not to use them around those who would misapply errant baggage to the terms. I find that a freethought label lends itself to more open conversations, except in cases where it is associated with atheism and that label's baggage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Joshpantera Posted February 28, 2015 Moderator Share Posted February 28, 2015 I use freethinker too, it summarizes all of the above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaseph Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 There's probably dozens of labels that I could (in part) identify with: Atheist Agnostic Freethinker Bright Skeptic Humanist Apatheist Antitheist (a very friendly one ) Ignostic Materialist Naturalist Rationalist Secularist Nontheist Nonbeliever Ex-christian Nonreligious However, I mostly consider myself just to be a human being. Religion has become irrelevant to me, and so have those labels. I try not to identify to strongly with a label, just use them when they are helpful in specific contexts. About science and philosophy; I love them both, they are a good couple! No need to choose one of them! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cousin Ricky Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Labels are like money: they are useful tools, so long as one remembers who’s in charge. When you give power to money or to a label, bad things happen.Labels describe us; they do not define us. Definitions are for the labels themselves, which we adopt when we find that they describe what we already are. I do label myself. If I find that someone misunderstands a label, or tries to define me based on a label, I correct them. This happens sometimes with the labels atheist and agnostic, both of which I identify with. I also identify with most of the other labels Jaseph listed, although those other terms tend not to be misunderstood (other than bright, which nobody other than brights has heard of). I do not consider myself an apatheist. I haven’t thought of myself as an antitheist, although according to an online quiz,[1] that is exactly what I am. A couple of labels I would add to the list are none and done. I do not call myself a pantheist, because it presumes a definition of god that I consider useless. At least one person still labels me as a Roman Catholic, which I highly resent. I also do not identify as a lapsed Catholic, although no one has called me that yet. Call me an ex-Catholic, a recovering Catholic (it’s ongoing [2]), or an apostate. I called myself backslidden once, but after I left the Catholic bubble, and started reading extimonies of former Protestants, I realized that I had an incorrect understanding of the term, and that it doesn’t really fit me. [1]And yes, it was a multiple choice quiz, with the usual deficiencies of that format. [2]The day I find myself comfortable with my sexuality or lack thereof, I will consider myself fully recovered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts