Atheists: Apostate vs Non-Apostate

[AlpsStranger]

edit: AlpStranger, if you feel this derails the thread too much, say the word and I'll drop it.

It's the tavern brosef. Smash all the tables you like.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Isn't having no belief in the matter not the same as lacking the belief?

I admit it is a technicality. That there is little difference between the two. I certainly don't mind being labelled a "godless atheist" by those who do believe in Easter bunnies and such. I guess I'd just prefer thread titles like this to be about "atheists and most agnostics" instead of just atheists, so the distinction doesn't even have to arise.

Example: Someone who has never heard of nor considered the existence of God is also deemed atheist. Being a theist requires a conscious decision. Without it, I would label someone an atheist.
I'm not questioning your opinions. Just the price-tag

That is certainly an interesting issue. But I bet once you properly explained to the individual in question what the fine points are that many of them would claim to be agnostics instead.

...What?

I really don't see how anybody could simply assume that a strong agnostic, or an agnostic atheist if you prefer that almost identical position, would believe in a god. Again, I'm no fence-sitter. I just like reinforcing the point that neither side can prove or disprove their position.

 

[Traitorfish]

I really don't see how anybody could simply assume that a strong agnostic, or an agnostic atheist if you prefer that almost identical position, would believe in a god. Again, I'm no fence-sitter.

You said you weren't an atheist. Therefore, you must be a theist. You also said that you were an agnostic, which means that you are an agnostic theist: someone believes in god, but doesn't not claim certain knowledge of his existence.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Like many such issues, there is the capability for far more nuance. The world frequently isn't that black and white.

 

[GoodGame]

I take it you mean by "apostate" that you were once a practicing Christian, or some other religion, and you no longer are. I never really was ever a Christian, even though I was required to attend Sunday school and then church for 8 years or so when I was a child.

I'm also not an atheist. I'm a strong agnostic instead.

So is the divide between atheist and agnostic----one believes all religion is man-made de facto, and the other disbelieves in religions they know of but allows for the possibility of a true god/religion that they haven't met yet?


Also, can one really be an agnostic AND a theist? I think that is a philosophical contradiction in belief state.



@OP, I think Ziggy eluded to the best answer, with his example---not all people grew up intellectually opposed to the existence of god, even if they didn't develop faith, which is why people with atheist beliefs might be apostates since their frame of reference is their up-bringing in a particular faith. For instance I consider my youth wavered between agnostic, and non-denominational Christian in response to rather weak attempts by family members to make me some sort of Christian; my agnosticism wavered between a "Christian" perspective (i.e. was there really a god of the old testament) and a universalist perspective (i.e. is there a god for all of humanity that reaches out to people through different religions).

I suppose it comes down to how one reasons one's belief/disbelief---from faith, fact, or from tradition (cultural or doctrinal).

 

[Formaldehyde]

I'll "believe" anything you can factually prove. Everything else, not so much...

There are a multitude of different positions which lie under the umbrella term "agnostic". I suggest you read the Wiki article whose URL I posted above for more details. I can only speak for myself.

 

[warpus]

I'm a regular Joe from the heart of America who just happened to be raised more-or-less as an atheist. Most people I meet who are atheists are usually apostates. While I certainly support many atheist causes that I'm sure religious people find infuriating, I'm not quite as passionate about my atheism in other ways.

How can one be passionate about a lack of a belief?

That doesn't make sense to me at all.

"I don't believe that unicorns exist. CHECK OUT MY PASSION"

 

[AlpsStranger]

EDIT: Never mind. I just wrote a bunch of silly crap

 

[GoodGame]

How can one be passionate about a lack of a belief?

That doesn't make sense to me at all.

"I don't believe that unicorns exist. CHECK OUT MY PASSION"

It makes sense in a practical/political/philosophical way.

Apostate: Do you deny a particular god/religion as fake? E.g. Religion X is so fake, and obviously a scam. There is no god to it.

Empiricist: There is no evidence for god, "I've never seen a god, I know that men lie to make other people their sheep, I know that people are superstitious, etc..."



Like one philosopher could be like: "I thought about religion X, couldn't dig it, therefore there is NO GOD".
Another philosopher could be like: "Without passion men are sheep. Men who believe in god and religion are sheep. Therefore my passion drives me to be an athiest undefined by other people's religions".

 

[AlpsStranger]

How can one be passionate about a lack of a belief?

That doesn't make sense to me at all.

"I don't believe that unicorns exist. CHECK OUT MY PASSION"

Because you know damn well it's more complicated than that in American culture. Atheists in Scandinavia probably aren't as passionate.

My atheism doesn't make me passionate by itself. It's my opposition to the cultural right that lights my fire.

 

[GoodGame]

I envision an alternative world where Soren Kierkegaarde is an athiest arguing that athiest is too drab, and needs more passion.

 

[AlpsStranger]

<snip>

 

[Borachio]

This OP is a more interesting topic.

I would describe myself as agnostic, if what that means is that I don't know whether there is a God - however you define one - or not. But then, I'd describe everyone else as agnostic too. Even evangelicals who seem utterly convinced don't really know either, which is why they have to believe stuff. Unless of course they're keeping something from the rest of us.

I was brought up fairly conventional High Church Anglican and gradually drifted away from it, as far as all that metaphysical stuff is concerned. Morally, though, Matthew 5 to 7 or so seem pretty well spot on to me. (YMMV) And this of course could just be a cultural thing.

It sees fairly obvious that the general milieu of the majority here, believers or atheists, is predominantly Judeo-Christian. It really pervades the whole culture from language to government. So like it or lump it, I think we're stuck with it to a very large extent; at least for the time being.

I have known a number of people who have "lost" their faith. Sometimes gradually, sometimes suddenly. Very often after a catastrophic bereavement.

Some people experience this change with a sense of sadness and loss: they would like to believe but find they no longer can.

Others feel a sense of freedom.

I don't see myself as ever going back to church attendance. I simply got bored with thinking "Now, is this bit, and this bit, really true?"

However, I do still give it a lot of thought. I think most people find it an interesting subject. Why would anyone who thought otherwise give it any attention at all?

Let's say I still toy around with ideas - like: what if there is a God and/or afterlife? How do you define these two? This is just idle kitchen sink philosophy, I know. But quite entertaining.

madviking's link puts atheism nicely, I think


Link to video.

I pretty much agree with what the guy says, but I still am just not certain one way or another. And I don't expect I ever shall be.

 

[sophie]

Like many such issues, there is the capability for far more nuance. The world frequently isn't that black and white.

He isn't talking about just white and black though, he's talking about white, gray, grayer, and black.

As for myself. I was raised in a vehemently atheist household. My dad is a near-militant atheist who holds nothing but disdain for believers (You know, one of those "The Catholic Church is the most evil institution in the world and has set civilization back centuries" kind of guys). I used to be pretty anti-theist too when I was younger. I used to worship Richard Dawkins and relish in picking arguments with believers. Now I'm more of an atheist in the sense of I don't particularly care if there is a god or not. I care about and interact with (and am interested by) Christianity only within its historical context. I definitely appreciate the rich art, literature, and music which Christianity (and the other world religions, whatever the hell that phrase means) has produced, but beyond that I really couldn't care less if there is a hell, it doesn't really make much of a difference to me.

 

[Traitorfish]

Like many such issues, there is the capability for far more nuance. The world frequently isn't that black and white.

I don't think you're quite following me.

 

[Formaldehyde]

He isn't talking about just white and black though, he's talking about white, gray, grayer, and black.

There is no "grey" at all given that one must supposedly either be an atheist or a theist.

 

[Traitorfish]

Both those terms encompass a pretty huge amount of grey.

 

[Winner]

I've never been a believer.

My mother is a (very) occasionally practicing Catholic, my father is an atheist. I've attended some religious after-school classes as a kid, but for me it was just a bore and I never took it seriously. I've been christened, so I guess technically (from the point of view of the believers) I might be an apostate. I don't see myself that way though.

Generally speaking, most atheists in this country are non-apostates.

 

[sophie]

There is no "grey" at all given that one must supposedly either be an atheist or a theist.

It allows for at least 4 possible options:

Agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, gnostic atheist, gnostic theist.

So there you go. White, gray, grayer, and black. That's ignoring other possible points of classification he could have gone with, as well. So I think you're the one who is making it a black and white affair.

 

[warpus]

Apostate: Do you deny a particular god/religion as fake? E.g. Religion X is so fake, and obviously a scam. There is no god to it.

I deny all supernatural religions as being bull. Why should I get excited or passionate about any of them?

Empiricist: There is no evidence for god, "I've never seen a god, I know that men lie to make other people their sheep, I know that people are superstitious, etc..."

There isn't evidence for an infinite number of things. Why should I get passionate about me not believing in any of them?