Who are "no religion" people?

[megasamurai]

I find it interesting that about a third of Americans are "no religion" but only a tiny percent (2%) are atheist or agnostic. Who are these people? I've met people who deny that Christianity is a religion and say "It's not a religion, it's a relationship." There have been Christians in denial who hate the term Christian because of its connotations and call themselves "Jesus worshipers" or a similar moniker. It is also possible that these people are atheists or agnostics in denial because of the connotations of these words. Deism could be on the rise. They are probably a combination of these people, but I don't know how the pie is sliced. Is unbelief in Jesus' divinity really that small? 

[mymistake]

I was under the impression that the "nones" in US demographics are mostly soft atheists.  Though most of them probably would call themselves something else because the term is generally misunderstood.  Basically they are just secular people who have better things to do.

[RealityCheck]

I think these are the individuals who are "spiritual" or have some vague abstract concept of a god.  Perhaps it could also be because people have a difficult time giving a definitive yes or no answer on sensitive matters. 

[ContraBardus]

Soft athesits and agnostics are almost the same thing.

 

Soft atheists are people who don't believe in God, but also don't explicitly say there isn't one. Agnostics are people who think there might be a God, but aren't sure either way.

 

Then there are deists, which also fit into this group. These are people who believe in the existence of "God" as a concept or being, but don't subscribe to any particular religion's version of a deity.

 

In general, these types people don't think it matters much either way, and tend to take a general view that as long as they are a "good person" they will be fine.

 

Then there are Atheists who don't want to be associated with the stigma or stereotypes of atheism, and thus don't identify that way.

 

Either way it's a null vote. Most people who identify as "non/not-religious" fall into one of these groups. Some never go to church, but a lot of them sometimes attend a church for social reasons or because family members do, or only go for special occasions such as Christmas or Easter services, or otherwise attend infrequently.

 

I suppose I'm what you'd call a "soft atheist". I dislike the word "impossible" because I don't think there is such a thing, or at least that it can't reasonably be proven, and prefer "improbable". I don't think "God" as a concept is impossible, just highly improbable to the point it's not worth considering. I suppose that's functionally the same thing as saying "there is no God", but without the implication of a level of certainty I'm not comfortable claiming about pretty much anything that I can't prove.

 

I'll usually say I'm Ignostic, as I refuse to discuss the existence of God unless the term has been clearly defined.

[megasamurai]

I wonder why deist or agnostic aren't terms many people identify as. Are these terms stigmatized as much as atheism?

[mymistake]

4 hours ago, ContraBardus said:

Soft atheists are people who don't believe in God, but also don't explicitly say there isn't one. Agnostics are people who think there might be a God, but aren't sure either way.

 

That could be the exact same person.  Somebody could not believe in God, think there might be a God, not claim their isn't one and also not be sure.   Perhaps secular is the best name we could use to describe ourselves in our current culture.

[ContraBardus]

1 hour ago, mymistake said:

 

That could be the exact same person.  Somebody could not believe in God, think there might be a God, not claim their isn't one and also not be sure.   Perhaps secular is the best name we could use to describe ourselves in our current culture.

 

No, they are similar, but different.

 

An agnostic is: "I don't know if God exists or not, and have no opinion either way".

 

A soft atheist is: "I don't believe God exists, but can't prove that it doesn't".

 

A hard atheist is: "God does not exist."

[Orbit]

It's my understanding that on the Pew Research Center Religious Landscape study, that the "nones" are people who checked the box that said "none" when asked about religion. It could mean they are believers, but unaffiliated with any church; that they are atheist/agnostic; and/or "spiritual but not religious". I do think Pew asks some followup questions to get at the numbers for those three possibilities, though. It wouldn't surprise me that if there were a box for "don't really care" many people would check that. If I recall correctly, they separately ask about belief in God (70+% IIRC), and if my memory serves it was about 78% for Americans to say they believed in Heaven, while only about 50% believed in Hell. There was also a gender difference, with women having slightly more (about 10%) more religious beliefs than men. Interesting stuff, I love the Pew studies.

[mymistake]

6 hours ago, ContraBardus said:

 

An agnostic is: "I don't know if God exists or not, and have no opinion either way".

 

 

Unless he worships a god that guy is technically an atheist.  The "no opinion" part sounds like he doesn't worship a god.  Plenty of atheists are the same as agnostics.  And it isn't disqualifying to attend religious services for social or cultural reasons.  Plenty of atheists go to church.  You have to genuinely worship a god on a personally meaningful level for it to count.  If the rituals regarding a god don't have personal meaning to you then you're technically atheist.  People hate that word because it has been given a bad reputation but secular, none, no religion - the bottom line is all of these people have stopped being enslaved to preachers and starting living for themselves.

 

 

 

6 hours ago, ContraBardus said:

A soft atheist is: "I don't believe God exists, but can't prove that it doesn't".

 

A hard atheist is: "God does not exist."

 

 

We divide atheist further because lacking theism is such a wide category.  Realistically the spectrum goes from "don't know and have no opinion either way" on the soft end to "gods are fictional characters used to control and manipulate a population" on the hard end.  Of course theists are always allowed to think gods are fiction as long as it isn't the god(s) they themselves worship.

 

 

[Joshpantera]

26 minutes ago, mymistake said:

We divide atheist further because lacking theism is such a wide category.  Realistically the spectrum goes from "don't know and have no opinion either way" on the soft end to "gods are fictional characters used to control and manipulate a population" on the hard end.  Of course theists are always allowed to think gods are fiction as long as it isn't the god(s) they themselves worship.

 

I agree with the above. And further along, both of these divides are each true in different senses. 

 

You can't technically know what might exist out there, out to infinity beyond the visible and observable universe. So it's a philosophical no, no, to say no gods exist out there somewhere. That's the truth of the soft position.

 

But at the same time, take a god like YHWH and we can see specifically how it evolved over time as a man made concept that changed and grew as it went along, from a polytheistic framework to a monotheistic framework. The end result is specifically man made, like Santa Claus or any other parallel example with parallel evidence of it's human made evolution over time. And it can be shown that the concept is used to control and manipulate a population. All factual claims based on demonstrable truth. 

 

So a complete overview of the truths expressed should encompass something like embracing both soft and hard atheism at the same time, shouldn't it?

 

But that's an aside. I think the pew the results are mainly to do with people who have some vague belief in god but are over organized religion with it's bullshit and social manipulation. In time I'd imagine that eventually that would lead to generations of people who just drop the belief in god altogether as that general lack of interest in religions plays out further. But right now it's probably just agnostic theist types by and large, followed by agnostic atheists. It would be beneficial if they'd ask the right questions so it could better known who the "none's" really are. 

 

Do you know if any gods exist? 

 

If so, how? 

 

Regardless of whether you know if any gods exist, do you believe they do anyways, yes or no?

 

That's an easy way to sort out the "agnostic theist's" from the "agnostic atheists." And "gnostic theist's" from the "gnostic atheist's." Those percentages would be interesting to know. 

 

 

 

 

[ContraBardus]

2 hours ago, mymistake said:

 

Unless he worships a god that guy is technically an atheist.  The "no opinion" part sounds like he doesn't worship a god.  Plenty of atheists are the same as agnostics.  And it isn't disqualifying to attend religious services for social or cultural reasons.  Plenty of atheists go to church.  You have to genuinely worship a god on a personally meaningful level for it to count.  If the rituals regarding a god don't have personal meaning to you then you're technically atheist.  People hate that word because it has been given a bad reputation but secular, none, no religion - the bottom line is all of these people have stopped being enslaved to preachers and starting living for themselves.

 

 

Nope. The guy is null. It is a neutral position.

 

Atheism is not simply not worshiping a God, it is not believing in one. Atheism is a negative position.

 

Agnostics don't not believe in God, nor do they believe it doesn't exist.

 

Even soft atheists have a position, just one that isn't quite as firm as a hard atheist, but still reasonably certain. Their position is "I can't prove that it's not possible, but don't think it's plausible enough to consider true." A soft atheists position is more a case of reasonable certainty and concluding that "no God" is more probable, but that it also isn't outright impossible because there really isn't such a thing as impossible, at least not to any degree that we can reasonably prove.

 

The difference between Hard and Soft Atheists is simply the level of certainty that no God exists. Hard Atheists are confident that no God exists and view it as provably wrong. Soft Atheists admit that negatives can't be proven so it isn't impossible, just unlikely to the degree it's not really worth considering.

 

It's kind of like how dropping the pieces of a broken glass could have all the pieces fall in such a way that they would reform the glass as whole again. With our current understanding of physics, this should actually be possible, but that doesn't mean that it ever actually would happen, regardless of how many times we dropped the broken glass pieces. To a Soft Atheist, believing in God is akin to dropping the broken glass pieces and actually expecting them reform the whole glass when they land rather than just scatter broken glass all over the floor.

 

A Hard Atheists would be someone with the position that even though physics as we understand it says it could happen, the fact that it never has happened proves that it can't and is impossible.

 

I think Soft Atheism is a more reasonable position, even though I do understand the reasons behind the certainty Hard Atheists have regarding the subject. They probably aren't wrong, but really can't definitively prove it just on the basis that it is a negative. Hard Atheists tend to think that because they can show logical flaws, errors, contradictions, signs that those Gods are more of human origin than divine, and other evidence that specific religions are false, that it invalidates the general concept of "God" completely and proves it is false. It doesn't of course, but that also doesn't prove that it is probable either.

 

This is why I like to say I won't discuss the existence of God unless the term is clearly defined. Depending on how you're defining the term "God" some concepts are more likely than others, but that doesn't mean any of them are plausible to the point that it's worth considering as factual either. For the sake of example it's the difference between saying there is a 0% chance and that there is a .000000000000000000001% chance [there are probably a lot more zeroes after that decimal point involved, but you get the idea].

 

Just because you can't prove that there are purple unicorns that live on the surface of Venus doesn't mean they don't exist. They likely don't, and it's up to those who would claim they exist to prove that they do. There's also the fact that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

Agnostics don't make a decision and don't hold a position on the matter. They don't make a decision because they feel that there isn't enough information to make a call either way. Nor do they generally see any reason to care.

 

Think of it this way...

 

+2 Strong Religious Theist

 

+1 Weak Deist Theist

 

0 Agnostic

 

-1 Soft Atheist

 

-2 Hard Atheist

[mymistake]

Kind of getting off topic here.  Perhaps a dedicated thread in the lion's den?

[ContraBardus]

16 minutes ago, mymistake said:

Kind of getting off topic here.  Perhaps a dedicated thread in the lion's den?

 

Not really, these are the people OP was talking about regarding the "No Religion" types in those surveys. It's not one group, and all of these groups are a factor in that sub-group.

 

It's made up of Weak Deists, Agnostics, and Soft Atheists who don't identify with the term "Atheist" due to its association with Hard Atheism.

 

To a certain degree it may also include those in other faith systems that view "Non-Religious" as the "Other" category if one isn't available, or view their belief system as non-religious spiritualism. Scientologists, Pantheon Worshipers, Wicca, Atheistic Buddhists, etc...

[mymistake]

 

9 minutes ago, ContraBardus said:

 It's not one group, and all of these groups are a factor in that sub-group.

 

It's made up of weak deists, agnostics, and weak atheists who don't identify with the term Atheist due to its association with Hard Atheism.

 

 

You are using the terms the way Christianity defines them in order discredit non-Christians.  That is one way to do it but many people realize Christianity should not get to classify the rest of humanity.  Christianity doesn't have to own the language unless we give up.  If we forget the false narrative that Christians gave the term "atheist" then it means anybody who isn't a theist, as in not theist.  That is a whole lot of people.  Spreading misconceptions about atheism can help Christianity confuse people.

 

 

 

 

[ContraBardus]

49 minutes ago, mymistake said:

 

 

 

You are using the terms the way Christianity defines them in order discredit non-Christians.  That is one way to do it but many people realize Christianity should not get to classify the rest of humanity.  Christianity doesn't have to own the language unless we give up.  If we forget the false narrative that Christians gave the term "atheist" then it means anybody who isn't a theist, as in not theist.  That is a whole lot of people.  Spreading misconceptions about atheism can help Christianity confuse people.

 

 

 

 

 

What? Sorry, you just went off the rails. This makes zero sense.

 

It is just plain wrong. You're stretching the term "Atheist" too broadly.

 

Quote

a·the·ist

ˈāTHēəst/

noun

noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists

a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

 

Notice how the definition specifies a negative.

 

I can find no sources that suggest the two are the same, related yes, but they are two different things according to any source I can find that discusses the subject.

 

Here's an example from a secular source.

 

Agnostics don't not believe in God. An agnostic is an uncertain person who believes God might be real. That implies a certain level of positive belief, but not enough to create certainty that one exists. They view it as an unknowable, but not one they reject as implausible to any real degree.

 

An Atheist is not simply someone who does not subscribe to a religion. It is specifically a person who has a negative belief regarding God: That it doesn't exist. Agnostics do not share that belief.

 

Also, yes, I am aware of the etymology of the term "Atheist". Etymology is the source of a word's origins, it does not dictate how its modern usage is defined, though it is usually at least somewhat similar.

 

WTF? Why the hell can I not edit the lower part of this out of the quote box? I can't edit anything below the quoted definition in fact. That sucks.

[ContraBardus]

Anyway, the difference between an Agnostic, a Soft Atheist, and a Hard Atheist is the level of certainty.

 

An Agnostic doesn't know. They do not feel they have enough information to make a conclusion. There is no certainty either way.

 

A Soft Atheist does know, and feels they have enough information to make a reasonable conclusion, but can't definitively prove it beyond all doubt. It's similar to the kind of certainty one has regarding a scientific theory. It's as close to certain as we can be until new evidence comes along that alters that certainty one way or the other. Soft Atheists accept that there is always the possibility that new evidence might surface, however unlikely that might be.

 

A Hard Atheist believes the evidence is conclusive and final, making the non-existence of God definitive beyond all doubt.

 

Also, there is such a thing as Agnostic Atheism. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but this also shows that they are two separate concepts.

 

This isn't quite the same as the kind of Soft Atheism I'm talking about though. As Soft Atheism implies a strong level of certainty, only taking into account that a negative can't be proven and that there may be evidence that exists that could alter the conclusion made, even if it is highly improbable. Soft Atheists don't view it as a reasonable consideration that such evidence will likely ever surface, and merely admit that it's not outright impossible. A Soft Atheist does "know" that God doesn't exist in as much as they can be reasonably certain of it.

 

Agnostic Atheists don't believe in God because there is no evidence that it is true, but also says that we can't really know that one doesn't exist.

 

Again, it's a matter of a difference in the level or certainty.

[mymistake]

19 minutes ago, ContraBardus said:

 A Hard Atheist believes the evidence is conclusive and final, making the non-existence of God definitive beyond all doubt.

 

 

Don't be silly.  Of course they don't.  That is a misrepresentation made by people who don't understand hard atheism.  Outside of your own existence, you can't know anything beyond all doubt.  Outside of mathematics you can't prove anything beyond all doubt.  Hard atheists simply do not accept gods getting away with special pleading.  Gods should be expected to play by the same rules that we use for knowledge regarding any other topic.

 

 Like I said, we are way off topic.  This thread is about the "no religion" people, not about misconceptions on the meaning of atheism.  Perhaps a dedicated thread in a different forum would be better?

 

[ContraBardus]

31 minutes ago, mymistake said:

 

 

Don't be silly.  Of course they don't.  That is a misrepresentation made by people who don't understand hard atheism.  Outside of your own existence, you can't know anything beyond all doubt.  Outside of mathematics you can't prove anything beyond all doubt.  Hard atheists simply do not accept gods getting away with special pleading.  Gods should be expected to play by the same rules that we use for knowledge regarding any other topic.

 

 Like I said, we are way off topic.  This thread is about the "no religion" people, not about misconceptions on the meaning of atheism.  Perhaps a dedicated thread in a different forum would be better?

 

 

Eh, the question has been answered as well as it can be anyway. I'm too lazy to move to another thread. Besides, you've really got no case here and are just making claims, so I'm thinking there wouldn't be enough discussion to warrant another thread at this point.

 

Prove it. Every single definition or explanation I've ever seen regarding Hard/Positive/Explicit Atheism says otherwise.

 

You're making the claim. Back it up.

 

A simple Google search sinks your argument quickly, and with secular sources at that.

 

Quote

Noun

hard atheist (plural hard atheists)

1. An atheist who explicitly asserts that no deities exist.

 

You're basically asserting that no dogmatic Atheists exist and that all Atheists base their lack of belief on sound scientific and mathematical reasoning. We both know that isn't true.

 

Just because you don't like the way dogmatic "hard" atheists make the rest of us look, doesn't mean they don't exist or that the definition of "Hard Atheists" means something that you like the sound of more.

[mymistake]

26 minutes ago, ContraBardus said:

 

A simple Google search sinks your argument quickly, and with secular sources at that.

 

Nope.  I didn't say you can't find a dictionary that agrees with you.  I was alluding to the fact that the Catholic Church had the power to kill anybody who questioned their authority back when English was being developed so they controlled the definitions.  By controlling the language the Catholic Church could misrepresent opposing ideas and thus discredit atheists.  But those definitions do not work anymore because today the Catholic Church can't murder people and it's kind of silly to put atheists in a box in ways that don't make sense.  Our population is turning away from religion.  What is it now, 20% or 25% of people have joined the "no religion" group.  It's in our best interests to promote a modern understanding of atheism.

 

 

26 minutes ago, ContraBardus said:

You're basically asserting that no dogmatic Atheists exist and that all Atheists base their lack of belief on sound scientific and mathematical reasoning. We both know that isn't true.

 

Nope.  I am asserting that you don't understand hard atheists.  Since atheists includes any person who does not have theism there will be all kinds of atheists.  A large population with almost nothing in common except lack of religion based on a personal god will lead to all kinds of diversity.  Some atheists are bound to be dogmatic.  Some will be unscientific.  Some with have no interest in math.  Some will have not learned logic.

 

[ContraBardus]

6 minutes ago, mymistake said:

 

Nope.  I didn't say you can't find a dictionary that agrees with you.  I was alluding to the fact that the Catholic Church had the power to kill anybody who questioned their authority back when English was being developed so they controlled the definitions.  By controlling the language the Catholic Church could misrepresent opposing ideas and thus discredit atheists.  But those definitions do not work anymore because today the Catholic Church can't murder people and it's kind of silly to put atheists in a box in ways that don't make sense.  Our population is turning away from religion.  What is it now, 20% or 25% of people have joined the "no religion" group.  It's in our best interests to promote a modern understanding of atheism.

 

 

 

Nope.  I am asserting that you don't understand hard atheists.  Since atheists include any person who does not have theism there will be all kinds of atheists.  A large population with almost nothing in common except lack of religion based on a personal god will lead to all kinds of diversity.  Some atheists are bound to be dogmatic.  Some will be unscientific.  Some with have no interest in math.  Some will have not learned logic.

 

 

Most of this is irrelevant.

 

In other words, you have nothing to back this up and are just making bald claims.

 

Just because you don't like the way dogmatic "hard" atheists make the rest of us look, doesn't mean they don't exist or that the definition of "Hard Atheists" means something that you like the sound of more.

 

I provided evidence to back my claims, and you've done nothing to show you're correct in any way aside from simply asserting it.

[mymistake]

3 minutes ago, ContraBardus said:

 

In other words, you have nothing to back this up and are just making bald claims.

 

I've given you reasons.  Reasons do not stop being reasons simply because you don't like their ramifications.

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, ContraBardus said:

Just because you don't like the way dogmatic "hard" atheists make the rest of us look, doesn't mean they don't exist or that the definition of "Hard Atheists" means something that you like the sound of more.

 

You should look up the Strawman fallacy.  

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, ContraBardus said:

 I provided evidence to back my claims, and you've done nothing to show you're correct in any way aside from simply asserting it.

 

 

Dictionary entries have nothing to do with the subject.  I've already explained how the definitions were set up to discredit atheists.  Is your dictionary an authority on history?  Do you not understand the history of the Catholic Church?

 

 

 

[ContraBardus]

13 minutes ago, mymistake said:

 

I've given you reasons.  Reasons do not stop being reasons simply because you don't like their ramifications.

 

 

 

 

You should look up the Strawman fallacy.  

 

 

 

 

 

Dictionary entries have nothing to do with the subject.  I've already explained how the definitions were set up to discredit atheists.  Is your dictionary an authority on history?  Do you not understand the history of the Catholic Church?

 

 

 

 

Yeah, we're done here.

 

I've made my case and backed it up, and you haven't bothered to do so for yours.

 

All you're doing is repeatedly making claims while providing no evidence to back them up. You can call them "reasons" if you want, but bald claims is exactly what they are.

 

There is no reason to continue this further if all you're going to do is repeat the same things over and over and pretend that somehow magically creates evidence for your claims. If I wanted to have a conversation like that, I'd go to ToT and find a post where BO is lurking.

 

[mymistake]

17 minutes ago, ContraBardus said:

I've made my case and backed it up . . . 

 

Really?  Can you name some hard atheists who assert that they know "beyond all doubt"?  That is your case.  Go ahead and back your case up by naming people who actually say they know "beyond all doubt".

 

In the years that I have been a hard atheist I have searched the internet and never found one.  If I don't think it and everyone else who claims they know there are no gods also doesn't use that line of reasoning, then where are the hard atheists who assert they know "beyond all doubt"?  If there are no people who think this then why do we reserve a term to describe people who do not exist?

 

[ContraBardus]

 

[ContraBardus]