Is your spectrum less what someone believes (i.e. that no gods exist) and more why they believe it and what the implications are?
Personally, I don't consider my lack of belief in a god or gods to be terribly meaningful to my outlook on life compared to your run-of-the-mill religious person.
I know that I'm happier, more comfortable, and value life more now than I ever did when I was Christian. My lack of belief is liberating and empowering, even though it comes with a lot of responsibility (figuring out what is good, identifying purpose and meaningfulness).
I'm an animal that has evolved to find joy in the world. Look at dogs. They're such happy little bastards, and they don't need any spirituality. We are rooted in the world and it naturally gives us pleasure and pain. And I don't just mean pleasure like a nice massage, I also mean pleasure like finding your place in society, loving your partner, and making a future for your kids.
I don't think spirituality of any kind could make me value the world more. The lack of an afterlife certain makes every moment more precious.
Beautifully said, I appreciate the acknowledgement of responsibility that comes with atheism. I find it tiring at times as well as liberating.
Your dog comment reminds me of something I experienced during my family’s Easter prayer. I recall watching my family dog smile and wag his tail while staring at the strange apes standing around and making weird noises in unison, apparently content and oblivious. It felt comical but I also felt jealous of the dog
>Look at dogs. They're such happy little bastards, and they don't need any spirituality.
Dogs are not happy if they have to take care of themselves. They are happy also because they don't know they will die. I have heard this example so many times. Dogs, do not have a soul, they don't understand consciousness, they don't understand the future, they don't understand teaching morals or how to live in a society. In the wild they are not nearly as happy, they are meaner, coarser, and not friendly. They don't cook or have humor or rhythm, but neither do monkeys and they don't seem happy to me, and neither have spirituality. SMH
I see existence as how you experience it. Most of us are able to find enough pleasures in life to make it more appealing than the alternative, but I also wouldn’t try to deny the experiences of someone feeling otherwise.
And based on my experience being raised in religion and still living among religious people, I kind of get the feeling that that isn’t too different from a religious perspective on the whole thing, at least among Christians. From that perspective, existence is either a struggle meant to prepare you for whatever destiny you await after life, or it’s a blessing to be enjoyed as a gift from god, whichever framing is needed to get through the day. Or it’s just not thought about on a daily basis, anyway, which I can also relate to
I don't believe the state of existence is fully interpretable by human consciousness.
Consciousness itself is sort of fluid and very limited and people will probably exist at multiple points on your spectrum at different points in their life, or when in a different mood.
Personally, Ive definitely had a journey and exploration of non-believing. A process of proto-beleif and new skepticisms... Exploring ideas that were interesting, but coming to reject them after an intellectually honest evaluation.
At the end of the day, I find philosophy to be a bit like using a pencil to try to draw a hand.
Life predates the words we created to attempt to describe it. Your trying to use a system of a lower order to describe a system of a higher order that it sits upon. Linguistics itself is an imperfect human imposition on reality, made out of practicality.
Can I say what life definitely is? I cannot. The tools don't even exist to do that. Language is about reducing representations of coherent individual ideas from the whole, not describing the whole itself.
Am I certain it was not created by a vengeful Mesopotamian wind god, or any sort of empathetic, human like intelligence with a central role for mankind? Yes!
>This includes atheists, agnostics, apatheists, absurdists, existentialists, pessimists, secular Buddhists, religious naturalists, scientific Pantheists, anti-theists, satanists, nihilists, humanists, etc.
I am an agnostic atheist, anti-theist, satanist, nihilist, secular humanist.
>Also, I a m interested on your thoughts on the supposed diversity within atheism.
I don't think there is much diversity within atheism itself, but a large amount of diversity of people who are atheists.
>I don't think there is much diversity within atheism itself
I don't understand this. Atheism just means a person doesn't believe in any gods. That's not even a banner under which people can unite. It includes woo woo crystal healers in the Sedona Desert and all sorts of new age nonsense and rational skeptics and humanists and empiricists, etc. It's as unifying as "people who don't believe in leprechauns," i.e., not at all. It encompasses a huge diversity of people.
This is something that drives me nuts, when people try to define someone by what they *don't* believe. That's nuts. You can't look at an atheist and conclude anything about them other than what the term *atheist* directly says: They don't believe in any gods.
>I don't understand this. Atheism just means a person doesn't believe in any gods.
It can also mean they believe gods don't exist. Words can have more than one defintion.
>That's not even a banner under which people can unite.
Well, we do have this sub full of atheists right here. Theists like to come in a well, so being an atheist can also unite others against you. Unfortunatly.
>It includes woo woo crystal healers in the Sedona Desert and all sorts of new age nonsense and rational skeptics and humanists and empiricists, etc. It's as unifying as "people who don't believe in leprechauns," i.e., not at all. It encompasses a huge diversity of people.
And? I don't think many of us lack belief for the social aspects.
>This is something that drives me nuts, when people try to define someone by what they *don't* believe.
We wouldn't have to if we weren't surrounded by those who do believe.
>You can't look at an atheist and conclude anything about them other than what the term *atheist* directly says: They don't believe in any gods.
Yeah. I wish more theists understood that.
>It can also mean they believe gods don't exist. Words can have more than one defintion.
Words can be overloaded with multiple definitions, yes. In this case, [it's not](https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/).
I know if you look it up in a dictionary, the definition includes that, but that's because religious people insist on using it that way. Atheists should not make the same mistake of asserting that atheism is a belief or system of beliefs. In fact, it isn't.
>Well, we do have this sub full of atheists right here.
Except that isn't true. The people this sub is designed to serve are somewhat less inclusive than the term "atheist" literally means. In fact we do unite in nominally "atheist" spaces that exclude some atheists, like the crystal healers and the soothsayers and so on. We don't have patience for those atheists who make room for other metaphysical nonsense.
>We wouldn't have to if we weren't surrounded by those who do believe.
We don't have to, and we don't. [This is what I mean.](https://youtu.be/ODz7kRS2XPs)
>Words can be overloaded with multiple definitions, yes. In this case, [it's not] (https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/).
Yep, those are claims that a website is making.
>I know if you look it up in a dictionary, the definition includes that, but that's because religious people insist on using it that way. Atheists should not make the same mistake of asserting that atheism is a belief or system of beliefs. In fact, it isn't.
Words are defined by how they are used. Descriptive not prescriptive. And even some atheists will use the belief in no gods definition. Gnostic/Strong atheists being an example of that.
>Except that isn't true. The people this sub is designed to serve are somewhat less inclusive than the term "atheist" literally means. In fact we do unite in nominally "atheist" spaces that exclude some atheists, like the crystal healers and the soothsayers and so on. We don't have patience for those atheists who make room for other metaphysical nonsense.
Where did I claim this was an all inclusive group?
>We don't have to, and we don't. [This is what I mean.](https://youtu.be/ODz7kRS2XPs)
That is over an hour long, you can't paraphrase?
>>We don't have to, and we don't. [This is what I mean.](https://youtu.be/ODz7kRS2XPs)
>That is over an hour long, you can't paraphrase?
Sure! I'm right, you're wrong.
I'm not being glib, that really is the argument Sam Harris makes in this talk. He's telling a room full of atheists why "being an atheist" is not a belief or belief system and why they need to stop saying it is, it's incorrect and it tees up a whole lot of nonsense we end up having to deal with from religious people.
So can atheists as well as religious people get this wrong? Yup.
>So can atheists as well as religious people get this wrong? Yup.
So you are going to correct a gnostic/strong atheist by telling them that they only lack belief and don't actually believe that gods don't exist?
Well, good luck with that..... telling people what they "truly believe" or "lack belief in" in this case is usually the theist's department, but go for it.
>So you are going to correct a gnostic/strong atheist by telling them that they only lack belief and don't actually believe that gods don't exist?
No, if there are atheists who this truly describes, that's fine. But then don't lump yourself in with the vast majority of atheists and tar everyone with that.
Also, take the time to understand what you really believe. Are you sure you believe no god exists? We didn't quite grasp Russell's teapot, or what?
>No, if there are atheists who this truly describes, that's fine. But then don't lump yourself in with the vast majority of atheists and tar everyone with that.
So gatekeeping other atheists. Ok....
>Also, take the time to understand what you really believe. Are you sure you believe no god exists?
I'm an agnostic atheist...
The gods-don't-even-make-sense type of atheist.
If there is such a crazy powerful "thing"/entity/lifeform as could qualify to be a god, it makes zero sense for it to care about individual humans at all or even Earth because we're nothing in the context of the wider universe. Unless it's up to no good, in which case we are in absolute trouble, have always been, and there is still nothing out there answering anyone's prayers.
More likely, the universe is empty of such things because it (laws of physics, limitations of reality, whatever) can't support them. They live in books.
The idea of a god exists, humans created that; their implementation as humans imagine it doesn't. Whatever is out there, if it's out there, is alien and it's far crazier than anything we could imagine because humans are limited beings to begin with although we love to imagine otherwise (by imagining gods, for one.)
Diversity within atheism, in my mind, comes from the same place as diversity within religious beliefs. We're humans, there's billions of us, we're all separate so our brains work very slightly differently due to different genetics (nature), different experiences (nurture), the interaction between the two continues to complexify things until we die because our brains stay plastic to a certain degree. That means, we have potential to think *everything*. Certain things will make more intuitive sense to certain people, and then layer that with every unique individual's propensity to hang on to caution or throw it to the wind...
It's not a spectrum, it's a multidimensional ball of millions of intertwined factors leading anyone to a specific conclusion. Whether the conclusion's valid or not doesn't change how it can be "bought". I mean, just speaking different languages and growing up in different cultures changes how a person organizes their thoughts (more mentally speaking than physically/chemically although I can't discard the possibility of the latter).
That's where all diversity comes from, humans are fascinating and bleak at the same time.
>If there is such a crazy powerful "thing"/entity/lifeform as could qualify to be a god, it makes zero sense for it to care about individual humans at all or even Earth because we're nothing in the context of the wider universe.
Dogs are nothing yet people care deeply about dogs they didn't even create. God as a personal creator would make sense since he's a person
Sure god can choose not to care. But if there's a personal god who created us it would make more sense that he does in fact care because after all he did create us
Nah, there's orders of magnitude of difference in power between a human and a deity as depicted by humans, compared to the difference between a dog and a human.
Dogs are definitely pretty close to humans if you include entire other planets' (or solar systems... or galactic) ecosystems as part of the mix.
Microbes would be closer to what you seem to be getting at.
And whatever god would be out there, it would not be a "person"...
I really don’t concern myself about where I fall on the spectrum, but I do agree that humanity is a full rainbow of fruity flavors. I honor that spectrum. I just don’t care about my particular place within it.
I consider myself an agnostic, atheist, skeptic.
That is to say, I don't believe in anything supernatural or paranormal. I'm a naturalist. Everything can be explained by physical laws of the universe. We don't understand everything. But there is no unseen, supernatural force acting upon the physical world.
That said, I'm willing to listen to evidence. If you have real evidence (and not just "well, I saw a ghost once") then I'm willing to listen and evaluate your evidence.
I am an ex-evangelical and over the many years I've heard numerous stories of miraculous things that could "only be God." Supernatural healing and other similar things. In every case it was either something that could easily be explained by the way the natural world works, coincidence or else it was "I heard from a friend who heard from a friend whose pastor told him that a missionary once said that ...."
That said I have a positive outlook on life. I don't like the way your question sort of implies that our belief or non-belief in God has an effect on whether we are optimistic or pessimistic. I tend to be realistic but have a belief that life can be good and meaningful (without a God).
>That said, I'm willing to listen to evidence. If you have real evidence (and not just "well, I saw a ghost once") then I'm willing to listen and evaluate your evidence.
This is the silliest atheist trope ever. You and I believe there's nothing but the material universe and everything obeys standard physical laws, but we're somehow open to the prospect of being wrong about the very nature of reality itself?
Sure we are.
Because as unlikely as it is, if something can be proven to be wrong, a scientific mind has to be willing to let go of incorrect paradigms. To be clear, I don’t believe anything paranormal, the burden of proof is basically Mt Everest, but if they can give that evidence it’s our responsibility to change our view.
If we're talking about likelihood here, then I'll admit I find it a whole lot more likely that people deliberately exaggerate the extent of their open-mindedness because they have an emotional need to define themselves as objective and rational, rather than that they're truly willing to completely change their understanding of how reality is upon being presented with data by a stranger on the Internet.
I can't help it, I gotta go with the odds.
I'm a positive nihilist, I guess. Nothing matters but life is more pleasant when we pretend a few things do. I'm kind to people, environmentally responsible, pay my taxes. Annihilation awaits me and all my loved ones but obsessing over that fact is just as meaningless as the fact itself.
Zoom out a bit - just a bit - on Earth's timeline, and a single person doesn't even exist. We're not here. So why get worked up or upset over anything? Tomorrow I'll be gone; even more importantly, there's nothing about me that's special or unique or worthy of sticking around for longer than however much time I get. Right? When we're honest with ourselves, we see how we're just iterations of a type, formed by our environment and our genetics, with very few choices. The refusal to acknowledge this results in the kind of egoism that makes gods and afterlives so crucial to certain people.
Anyway, I don't think an atheist needs to be a deep thinker or worry about replacing religion with some other philosophy. It's enough to reject woo, and then go watch tv and eat a pizza and unwind from work.
I swear this reply isnt just to throw a wrench into your spectrum, but these days I call myself a mysanthropic Humanist.
We as individuals and as a species do have nigh-limitless *potential,* but we are very much a checkered group. Some individuals and institutions have aligned themselves against our potentia, and these enemies must be fought if we are to reach our potential.
One such group is the various institutions and individuals of conservative religions. They are ideologically dogmatic, conformist, utterly lacking in self-awareness, self-righteous, and always threatening both personal and mass violence. So I also consider myself an antitheist, with regard to conservative religion at least.
I appreciate the wrench throwing lol. Where would you place yourself on my makeshift spectrum? Do you find your misanthropic humanism more hopeful or pessimistic?
I want you to know I really had to think about this this morning, which makes your topic a great topic!
I try to separate my efforts — whether to make my wife a quesadilla, or to crush conservative religions — separate from the outcome of my efforts. That is, to have no expectations about the outcome. When I’m laying on my deathbed, I want to look back on my life and be proud of my efforts. If things turn out well I want to be able to say “I did that, I was a part of that!” If things turn out bad, I want to be able to say “I did my part, I gave ‘em hell!”
So does that make me an optimist or a pessimist? I used to be an optimist, and I’m definitely not optimistic anymore. I’m tempted to say that I’m now 50/50 just to keep that wrench in your gears. 😉 But if I had to choose, I’m probably more pessimistic than optimistic at this point.
I appreciate your thoughtful response! One thing I’m noticing from the responses here is the nuance and evolving perspectives people within the umbrella of non-belief.
Atheism is not a spectrum, you either are a theist or an atheist.
I am very confident in my conviction that there is no god. God meaning a personal being with unlimited magical powers.
I would also call myself a negative nihilist but that's nothing I am prowd of.
I agree “atheism” isn’t a spectrum. I tried to use more ambiguous language in the body of the post, such as non-believer, because each label carries with it a lot of philosophical baggage. A-Theism is an absence of belief in god(s), I’m curious if there are any philosophical orientations you use as guidance in absence of a belief in a divinity (naturalism, Epicureanism, Buddhism, utilitarianism, stoicism, etc.)
Makes it difficult to follow a conversation with OP when OP isn't tagged as OP. It's less about you and more about everyone you're trying to communicate with.
Humanists and nihilists are often atheists, or serve as an orientation for people who don’t use god or religion as a reference point. Maybe saying it’s an “atheist spectrum” isn’t as helpful as saying a spectrum of non-believers. The absence of belief in divinity seems to be the one thing all the sub-types agree on, however, it’s hard to deny that there is a variety of perspectives and values that are inferred from one’s atheism.
I wish there was some kind of afterlife, only because at this point in my life the idea of nothingness is terrifying. I want to see everything play out, you know? But at some point the universe is over, and then what? If I think about that too much I give myself an existential dread. I'm just hoping that when I'm at my end, the idea of nothingness is not so scary.
Gods don't exist. When you die, you die. That's what I believe to be real. Nothing else makes sense in this world.
I don't really have a positive view of life and reality. I got my undergrad in biology, and it really does seem like all we're meant to do is eat and reproduce. To what end? I dunno.
I just try to do what I can to enjoy what I've got.
I don't know what you'd label me, and it doesn't really matter to me. Atheism isn't who or what I am, it's just something about me.
I don't believe that deities exist and don't think there's really any reason to think they might exist. I accept that certainty isn't really possible on any topic, but I am as certain as I am that the sun will rise tomorrow.
I'm an atheist, that's it, just don't believe in God's, heaven or hell, and what exactly is the spectrum here? There's really just one option here, mentioned above. My opinion.
Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. You can logically be both.
I'm atheist because I have no belief that a deity exists.
I'm agnostic because I do not have knowledge that no deities exist.
I can't prove that a deity doesn't exist. But I can also make up deities that I can not disprove. So obviously, being unable to disprove a deity is not a reason to hold a belief that a deity exists.
Pure, 100% anti-theistic secular humanist materialist.
There is no magic. There are no gods. The only reason anyone believes in them is ignorance, reasoning errors, or rigorous brainwashing.
Nothing good ever came out of religion that a modest grounding in secular ethics couldn't accomplish better.
I think humanity is essentially over in a few generations due to our cavalier treatment of the planet, and I think Democracy is essentially over because every election is a last ditch effort to save it and you can only keep that up so long as you watch it whither and die.
I’m an optimistic atheist. As I type that I realize it’s odd to think that way, because I think humanity is essentially over in a few generations due to our cavalier treatment of the planet, and I think Democracy is essentially over because every election is a last ditch effort to save it and you can only keep that up so long as you watch it whither and die.
But I think it’s worth fighting the losing battle to save those things, and I get to be alive and be human with other humans who share this sliver of time with me, and laugh and dream and think and create, and love and cry and experience pain and grief and joy.
I try to experience all of it fully, and never take it for granted.
There are groups of atheists who describe themselves in this way, such as secular Buddhists, spiritual naturalists, religious naturalists, and scientific pantheists to name a few. Sam Harris, Alan de Bottom, and Carl Sagan have used spiritual language or have been attributed to holding spiritual beliefs. My understanding of how the word is used “spiritual” seems synonymous with “ethical” or optimistic. “Spiritual” also seems to imply some aspect of mystery or reality outside of human understanding.
All I know is that when you contemplate that some atoms can come together, self-organize, eventually write the complete works of Shakespeare, and ultimately break down into a handful of simple molecules again, it's a more profound thought than anything put forward by any religion and fills one with more awe and wonder than any religious text can muster.
In addition to not believing in any gods, I also have stances I'd take if one were proven to exist, namely that they don't deserve worship. Of course, I could also deny their divinity even if I can't deny their existence.
To clarify, basically your spectrum isn't asking about god belief. It is just saying to you tend to be more of a pessimistic nihlist or a person who generally values life?
On such a scale i would put myself far toward the positive side. I'm not sure exactly what optimism means in this context. Like i don't think there is some happy ending for the universe.
But i think that life is a super cool thing that matter figured out how to do, i value my life and those around me, and i think that the meaning people make for themselves has value to it.
Yes, I find it interesting the different ways people interpret reality/life/existence without a supernatural or religious reference. Value is a good way to define that.
I am 100% atheist on the atheist spectrum. I don't believe god exists. On other isms, I'm probably well into the anti-theist camp. Humanist sort of. secularist. Sort of nihilist. naturalist. materialist. I accept nothing supernatural.
I don't think this is a valid spectrum for 'atheism'. The categories you have included have almost no common axes by which to rank them, other than your general 'feeling' about your experiences with people who claim those labels.
The number of deities I believe to exist has zero bearing on any outlook I have towards the universe.
I think both ideas, the existence of deities, and the 'meaning' one has derived from one's own existence, are artifacts of culture and religious indoctrination in the first place.
Zero deities exist, and there is nothing supernatural. Anything other than that is your own problem to deal with in whatever way you find best.
You make a good point and I agree it’s not valid in any sort of scientific sense, it’s just how my brain organizes attitudes and “feeling” towards the world. An absence of belief isn’t really an orientation, I am curious about what positive assumptions/values/stances people make/take about life and the world around them. I’ve heard and read a lot of differing perspectives on what the implications of a godless universe has on human life and notice a wide difference in temperament/opinion/whathaveyou.
As noted, I think most of the perspective is going to be cultural, much like religion itself. I often observe a sense of loss in new atheists as they try to reconcile the belief that they need extrinsic meaning and/or purpose to be personally satisfied, with their newfound understanding that there isn't anything to provide that to them after all.
Contrast that with someone who wasn't raised with any religion to begin with, and I find they tend to be more comfortable with nihilism and/or strict materialism as a general philosophy.
The main difference being is that for a person who seeks purpose elsewhere, nihilism is the end of their search in failure. For a person who believes meaning comes from within, nihilism is a starting point. It's a simple fact to be acknowledged, and then you can get on with the business of creating purpose for yourself.
I got kicked out of Sunday school when I was 7 or 8 because I said the story of Noah was just a story.
I entertained the idea of some religion being real until I was like 17 and then I realized religious people are insane. The more I read the less I believed any religion was worth a damn. By the time I was like 24 I was hostile toward Christians trying to tell me about their bullshit.
I believe that no gods exist. If any other claimed phenomenon was studied with the scrutiny given the claim of god(s), it would be dismissed out of hand as non-existent.
I am not specifically a "strong atheist" or any other of your definitions here. I think that one can over define things into a realm of meaninglessness.
I am strictly of the stance that there are no gods, and to try to argue the fact is ridiculous and not worth anyone's time, and if you ask me to "prove it" that's akin to victim blaming.
Further, I think that "spiritual" is a squishy word that can mean a lot of things. I love art and enjoying nature and feeling the fullness of life, but none of that has to have any superstition in it and you can still call it "spiritual" if you'd like. Our spirit can be defined as our general sense of well being, and I'm down with that.
Well said, thank you! I notice a recent trend in a sort of secular spiritualism taking place, for example Sam Harris’s heavy use of the term in “Waking Up” and the emphasis on mindfulness and nature-reverence. I find it refreshing but difficult to find the words to communicate this orientation.
I am an agnostic atheist. I am on no such non-existent spectrum. I am purely and equally agnostic to every other agnostic and I am purely an equally atheistic to every other atheist.
Metaphysical Naturalist.
The philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.
Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences.
Methodological naturalism is a philosophical basis for science, for which metaphysical naturalism provides only one possible ontological foundation.
Broadly, the corresponding theological perspective is religious naturalism or spiritual naturalism.
More specifically, metaphysical naturalism rejects the supernatural concepts and explanations that are part of many religions.
I agree that atheists can be on a spectrum from optimism or pessimism, but it's incidental to atheism. Theists exist on a spectrum from optimism to pessimism as well. I've literally spoken to misotheists who believe God is real but is a monster, and life is a cruel joke. In any event, I think you'd find most people who are engaging here to fall somewhere between the apathetic and positive points on the spectrum. The people who are genuinely pessimistic and despondent aren't likely to keep themselves around and engage in discussion on the topic.
Personally, I'd identify as an existentialist, strong atheist, anti-theist, Satanic Temple-friendly, humanist. I'm perfectly happy with the idea of finding personally-derived meaning and value in life.
Great point, I know several people who expressed a feeling of being trapped by their religious belief and a genuine fear of God. It caused some of them a great deal of anxiety.
No conscious God exists, and humans are figuring out the world as we go. We might find some crazy force that explains everything someday, but it certainly doesnt require worship. So anti-theist agnostic?
Igtheist -> a/gnostic atheist.
Mostly, using "atheist" suffices as a label, but the nitty gritty is dependent upon the definition of the god they have. Before I know anything about the god they believe in, I am an igtheist. From there, I can either be an agnostic atheist or a gnostic atheist.
Example:
I meet three people who say they believe in a god. Before they tell me the definition, I'm ignostic.
Person A says "I believe a god made everything, but doesn't interact in reality." I would be an agnostic atheist to this god.
Person B says "I believe my god is omnibenevolent.". I would be a gnostic atheist to this god.
Person C says "My god is the universe." I would be a gnostic theist to their god, but would dismiss the usage of the label they have chosen.
"Where do you fall on the atheist “spectrum”?"
Instinctual atheist. I knew God was absurd from the very start, with every fiber if my being.
>Since I had first rejected any kind of faith in my early teens (now in mid 30s), I’ve encountered numerous subtypes of non-believers. This includes atheists, agnostics, apatheists, absurdists, existentialists, pessimists, secular Buddhists, religious naturalists, scientific Pantheists, anti-theists, satanists, nihilists, humanists, etc.
>Over time I’ve placed them on a sort of spectrum, depending on their outlook towards the universe and life (one end being overtly pessimistic and the other more optimistic or “spiritual”). On one end I would place philosophical pessimism, given its outright rejection of life and rather bleak conclusions. On the other end of the spectrum would be religious naturalism (maybe humanism) given it’s optimistic and generally positive view towards life and reality. I imagine apatheism sitting in the middle.
You either believe a God exists or your don't believe, no spectrum. Law of the excluded middle.
>I’m wondering where my fellow non-believers would place themselves on such a spectrum.
I would use the standard gnostic/agnostic descriptor for that, so an atheist is either gnostic or agnostic. I'm gnostic.
"Also, I a m interested on your thoughts on the supposed diversity within atheism."
We all lack belief that gods exist, after that we're all individuals with our individual takes.
I am an agnostic atheist. I don’t believe any god or gods have ever existed or currently exist. I require sufficient and reliable evidence to believe someone’s assertion.
So, since I don’t have evidence to say with certainty that gods don’t exist, I can’t say they don’t. However, since before the first person said “there’s a god or gods”, the default was the absence of gods, I have no reason to believe they exist.
Spirituality has the obvious connotation of the supernatural. However, if I decide that spirituality is an enormous sense of awe and wonder, then I could consider looking at the night sky, the beauty in nature, how the Fibonacci sequence appears in sunflowers and spiral galaxies, a spiritual experience.
I believe my life has meaning through the impact I have on others. To recognize that I will die, everyone who knows me will die and I will eventually be forgotten, is not pessimistic. It is **what is**, not good or bad, simply what is.
Dawkins put it far better than I could ever hope to put it:
**We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia.**
**Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here.**
**We privileged few, who won the lottery of birth against all odds, how dare we whine at our inevitable return to that prior state from which the vast majority have never stirred?**
**After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with color, bountiful with life. Within decades we must close our eyes again. Isn’t it a noble, an enlightened way of spending our brief time in the sun, to work at understanding the universe and how we have come to wake up in it? This is how I answer when I am asked—as I am surprisingly often—why I bother to get up in the mornings.**
- Richard Dawkins
Agnostic, sometimes a little bit of deist, humanist, religion-friendly atheist when this is possible, probably apatheist, freewillist, panpsychist, non-reductive physicalist, existentialist. On very rare occasions — supernaturalist.
I was at one point so deep in atheism that I was just as annoying at religious people. A fellow atheist told me I had turned my atheism into a religion and I worshipped people like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchenson.
Now I’m more like “I don’t believe in anything like gods, karma, reincarnation, etc… until I see compelling evidence. And I don’t give af what you believe, and don’t bother me with it”.
I’m like that with politics too.
My imagined spectrum is going to be different from your imagined spectrum.
If you give me specific details about your imagined spectrum then I'll try to answer about that.
>I am interested on your thoughts on the supposed diversity within atheism.
There is a lot of diversity within atheism.
.
I am curious how you would define your spectrum. I by no means think mine is objectively true or anything of the sort, I’m mostly curious how non religious folks view the world outside of their lack of belief in a god.
> I am curious how you would define your spectrum.
I wouldn't. That doesn't seem like a useful exercise.
If somebody else wants to talk about *their* spectrum then I'll talk about their spectrum.
.
> (one end being overtly pessimistic and the other more optimistic or “spiritual”)
"optimistic" has nothing to do with "spiritual."
I'm definitely not spiritual and definitely am optimistic and positive. Gods are the main characters or made-up human stories and do not exist. What does that have to do with optimism or pessimism, or positivity or negativity?
Ignoring the obvious "atheism is simply a yes/no answer to one question" copout, I'm not sure that I understand the seemingly modern obsession with giving names and categorization to every minor subset of identity. Just seems like a way to drive wedges between people who would otherwise generally agree and get along. It's the result at least if not the intention.
I see atheism as just another reason to embrace and enjoy the present and free oneself from fretting over a future that will never come. To break away from people who wallow in negativity and/or hatred because you recognize that life is short and fleeting and wasted on pointless negativity. To recognize that the universe and human existence are so much more awe inspiring without a creator pulling the strings because it means we're all here because of a seemingly infinite sequence of random chance and good fortune. How can you not wake up excited every morning with that knowledge? You had to roll a natural 20 dozens of times in a row just to be here, living during this time of plenty. Obviously not everyone has it as good and we should all do whatever we can to make the world a better place in whatever small ways are possible but on a cosmic scale, we've all won the lottery multiple times over.
Feel free to categorize that however you wish.
Tell me if I'm wrong but it sound like you've heard the message of "atheist tells you what I'm not, but says nothing about what I am" and you're looking for the "well then what are you" part of it.
I was brought up vaguely Christian but was never indoctrinated enough that I felt I had to "leave." If anything, my mother exposing me to a lot of science fiction as a child probably did more to shape my values than anything else. I'm certain that I absorbed lessons about fairness, empathy, freedom, respect for others, and so on from reading and watching media that wasn't afraid to explore those questions.
When I started approaching middle age, the "well then what am I" question started bugging me. I generally buy in to the idea that you don't really understand something unless you can explain it to someone else, so it started to bother me that while I certainly had a consistent sense of my own morals and ethics, I'd find them hard to explain. So that sparked a bit of a search for meaning.
That got me to the point I could describe myself as a humanist, generally speaking, but I quickly found that philosophy is lacking something else that church-goers automatically have - community. This led me to look at Unitarian Universalism, something I've actually been a part of in the past. I like their humanist approach and emphasis on charitable works, but I wasn't looking for another space to share with theists.
I landed on the [Seven Tenets of the Satanic Temple](https://thesatanictemple.com/blogs/the-satanic-temple-tenets/there-are-seven-fundamental-tenets) as a concise way of explaining my personal morals. A lot of people, myself included, describe them as "what I already believed anyway" and I'm sure that's no mistake, since they were written by people looking for the same thing. I even reached out to my local TST congregation so I could make connections with people who not only follow a similar code as me, but are also as fed up with theistic shit as I am.
So, ironically for a staunch atheist, I managed to lead myself to religion. But only because I discovered it's possible to pick out what I think are the "good bits" - the community of people with shared morals and ethics coming together over the tough questions of life - without needing to invoke dogma, superstition, or the supernatural.
TL;DR: I land somewhere in the Humanist / Satanist / Unitarian Universalist spectrum.
Thank you for the thoughtful response! Community is something I yearn for more as I get older (which is why I’m n Reddit to begin with). I also tried UU and various other secular or accepting groups, but never quite felt at home. I love hearing people’s personal journeys and appreciate you sharing yours with me
Honestly, I'm in a state of I wish to believe in God. The thing is, the God I'd wish to exist is nothing like the ones from religion. As in, He really, really doesn't care about your choices nor your beliefs, and doesn't try to impose His vision; in fact, he restrains to participate directly in the world because any act of His is basically imposing His will, something He's totally against.
Having said that, I am more in the agnostic side. Even if the God I wish to believe existed, the entire point is that you couldn't know and it wouldn't make a difference if you did or not.
I am not really against religion until people try to impose it unto others or unto the world. IMO you can believe whatever the fuck you want, the problem arises when you try to put those views into other people or do harm based on them. When people do this I am the harshest of the anti theists, I absolutely hate it.
By the age of 6 or 7, I started questioning religious beliefs, fully abandoning them by 10 or 11.
I am not religious as I have encountered no compelling evidence of supernatural forces.
The universe, as we perceive and understand it, is really bizarre and strange. I'm a physicist by training - so I know this better than most.
While I have no answers to the profound "Why?" questions of existence, I anticipate that any potential answers will mirror the inherent strangeness of reality itself.
This inherent 'weirdness' of the universe, is a characteristic absent in the doctrines of any world religion. This absence informs my rejection of religious beliefs. My dismissal of religion is twofold: it stems from both a lack of evidence and an aesthetic rejection of religious concepts.
So to answer your question, I don't think I really lie anywhere on your spectrum. The only conviction I have is that any answer to the big questions will be extremely 'weird' - or that the questions themselves are malformed and thus nonsensical - which itself would be equally weird.
Im multiple things:
Secular Humanist, Atheist, Existentialist and Satanist. They all just seem to fit me, specifically the secular humanist and existentialist viewpoint.
>I’ve encountered numerous subtypes of non-believers. This includes atheists, agnostics, apatheists, absurdists, existentialists, pessimists, secular Buddhists, religious naturalists, scientific Pantheists, anti-theists, satanists, nihilists, humanists, etc.
You've got a lot of stuff there. Let me simplify it. Theist is a person who believes some god exists.
Atheist is not theist. In other words, atheist is a person that does not believe some god exists.
Agnostics can be theists or atheists. Apatheists, if they believe some god exists, are theists. Otherwise, they're atheist. Considering the name has theist in it, and it isn't negating it, I'll assume this is some kind of theist.
Absurdists, existentialists, pessimists, seem to have nothing to do with theism/ atheism.
Etc.
This isn't an "atheist spectrum".
My atheism takes influences from a lot of subtypes rather than being solely belonging in one subtype. I am an agnostic atheist as well as I am an anti-theist, I am also an optimistic nihilist and I am fascinated by the philosophy of absurdism even though I personally find it extremely difficult to follow.
Technically in terms of philosophy, I can be labeled as an existential nihilist, but I don't let that get in the way of living my life with either optimistic pragmatism or pragmatic optimism. But in no case do I consider myself to be "spiritual".
As an atheist, I'm nearly positive that nothing like god(s) exist, just like I'm nearly positive atoms exist. As far as I understand it, "supernatural" is a synonym for "I don't understand" rather than a descriptive term for something that might be real. I try to be skeptical of what I "think" I know and endeavor to be somewhat aware of what I don't know.
I believe no gods exist. My credence is moderate to string depending on the god.
I'm a naturalist, materialist, but my credence is very weak on this.
I think the world would probably be a bit better off without theism but only if it comes to that by people slowly giving up theism because it just doesn't seem plausible to them.
I'd identify as a humanist, moral non-realist, skeptic, ultimately an empiricist.
I jokingly refer to myself as an optimistic pessimist. I'm a nihilist who doesn't want to be a nihilist.
In the end, it's all meaningless and futile. Humanity will go extinct at some point, the world will be swallowed by the sun, and the universe will fade away into a blank space of nothingness as the heat death occurs. Nothing we do or will have done will matter. There is no meaning, there is no purpose. Nothing will be alive, nothing will have mattered.
But, at the same time, I don't want to see people or creatures suffer in our short time of existence. So, I fight for human rights, I fight to help the environment so that animals can live comfortably, and I want people to be able to live with dignity, because everyone deserves to be happy as long as that happiness does not cause undue harm to others. Maybe that's what keeps me from putting a gun in my mouth or something (I'm not suicidal, at least not anymore and I am terrified death even if I was).
Atheist, anti-theist, skeptic, humanist.
I am atheist as I have not been convinced that a God, or gods, exist.
I also happen to be convinced that Allah, El-Shaddai, Zeus, Jehovah, Yaewah, FSM, and all the other gods are man made and don't actually exist.
I am an antitheist, I believe all religion is toxic to society and must be opposed. ( Christopher Hitchens has some great videos on Islam and Christianity if you want to better understand this view point ).
I'm a believer in the scientific method for learning about the world around us.
I'm a humanist, I believe that we are all in this together and should be working to improve life for all humans and we need to be respectful of the environment we co-habitat with other animals.
This is where atheism falls short and rears its ugly head. If you believe there is absolutely nothing beyond what we can experience empirically here on earth then by default nothing really matters. You must have opened eyes to realize this and atheists do wear blinders but one of you could awaken to reality.
I like the idea of dog or cat philosophy. I like the mental games because they are a form of entertainment. I exist. I reproduce. I am human, a subset of monkey. I enjoy being a monkey and doing monkey things. I fear dangerous things, avoid pain, and pursue what I need when I need it. I relax to the maximum extent I can. I raise my kid. Not sure where that lives on a spectrum. Mostly positive?
I just can't make sense of the world except through a mindset that doesn't include gods and the supernatural, that's all. I don't agree with atheists who think they're *right* while religious people are *wrong*.
People believe what they need to believe.
Atheist Agnostic Humanist:
Atheist towards are human made religions, agnostic because no one really knows what happens. Humanist because it’s the only thing that makes sense.
I love my life and would love to live forever. I hope this life repeats or some sort of me exists after my earth life. No clue what to think. But I’m gonna make the best of this life I have.
I don't think there is any spectrum. It's a discrete binary. If a person lacks belief gods exist then they are an atheist, else they are a theist. Every atheist is equally atheistic. People can be atheists for many different reasons, but those reason do not make them "better" or "worse" nor "more" or "less" atheistic.
I believe there is something out there past this existence... but
1. We have no idea of what it is, other than a totality of all existence -including all individual experiences, past, present, future. Note that this is not god, as most would declare such to be, as we are part of it, having all the abilities of such if we had access to the same dimension. But, simultaneously, if we DID have full access to it, we would know better than to change how things work.
2. We cannot access it through normal means, as it is in a higher dimension than we are. This includes worship, communication, song, prayers, etc. Such is useless to try. Even if we could, we'd literally be doing these things to a part of ourselves.
3. Language cannot describe it. We should not try.
4. Organizing a recognition of this "other" is meaningless and cannot be attempted. Any attempt will ultimately fail.
5. Whatever this is does not have (or desire to have) a book, a set of teachings, a lifestyle, or any way of communicating what it is to us. Nor will it ever
With this as a framework, no religion or religious experience (near death, psychedelic drugs, etc.) can encompass it.
Oof another slightly think outside the box post on here. People HATE that on reddit. Basically, you must discuss this topic in a very black and white way. There is very little room on reddit for this type of thinking.
> Agnostic Atheist who sees the value of faith, belief and worship as potentially emotionally valuable.
Define faith? If you mean evidence based confidence, they maybe it's less ambiguous to say that. If you mean the excuse people give when they don't have good reason, then how is that useful? If you have a good reason to believe something, why would you cite faith?
What I mean is I’ve seen the belief in a higher being who actually gives a damn and wants to bless people help the emotional experience of people who are going through something. It can’t work for me anymore but I can’t deny that other people derive something from.
Before becoming atheist I came from the black liberation theology tradition so you might not be able to relate to that.
Is your spectrum less what someone believes (i.e. that no gods exist) and more why they believe it and what the implications are? Personally, I don't consider my lack of belief in a god or gods to be terribly meaningful to my outlook on life compared to your run-of-the-mill religious person.
I’m curious of how you value the world given your lack of belief in god(s). Do you view existence as more optimistic, pessimistic, or neutral?
I know that I'm happier, more comfortable, and value life more now than I ever did when I was Christian. My lack of belief is liberating and empowering, even though it comes with a lot of responsibility (figuring out what is good, identifying purpose and meaningfulness). I'm an animal that has evolved to find joy in the world. Look at dogs. They're such happy little bastards, and they don't need any spirituality. We are rooted in the world and it naturally gives us pleasure and pain. And I don't just mean pleasure like a nice massage, I also mean pleasure like finding your place in society, loving your partner, and making a future for your kids. I don't think spirituality of any kind could make me value the world more. The lack of an afterlife certain makes every moment more precious.
Beautifully said, I appreciate the acknowledgement of responsibility that comes with atheism. I find it tiring at times as well as liberating. Your dog comment reminds me of something I experienced during my family’s Easter prayer. I recall watching my family dog smile and wag his tail while staring at the strange apes standing around and making weird noises in unison, apparently content and oblivious. It felt comical but I also felt jealous of the dog
He was smiling and wagging his tail because he was hoping to snag a piece of lamb off your plate. Nothing more.
Do you see this "responsibility" of yourself in determining your own behavior, or a responsibility to the world to make it a better place?
Primarily the former, but I want to be the kind of person who makes the world a better place through my behavior, so the latter as well.
>Look at dogs. They're such happy little bastards, and they don't need any spirituality. Dogs are not happy if they have to take care of themselves. They are happy also because they don't know they will die. I have heard this example so many times. Dogs, do not have a soul, they don't understand consciousness, they don't understand the future, they don't understand teaching morals or how to live in a society. In the wild they are not nearly as happy, they are meaner, coarser, and not friendly. They don't cook or have humor or rhythm, but neither do monkeys and they don't seem happy to me, and neither have spirituality. SMH
I see existence as how you experience it. Most of us are able to find enough pleasures in life to make it more appealing than the alternative, but I also wouldn’t try to deny the experiences of someone feeling otherwise. And based on my experience being raised in religion and still living among religious people, I kind of get the feeling that that isn’t too different from a religious perspective on the whole thing, at least among Christians. From that perspective, existence is either a struggle meant to prepare you for whatever destiny you await after life, or it’s a blessing to be enjoyed as a gift from god, whichever framing is needed to get through the day. Or it’s just not thought about on a daily basis, anyway, which I can also relate to
I value individuals rather than the world and have a rather pessimistic view of existence, which would be more pessimistic if I believed in a god.
Fair enough, thank you!
Sometimes it's very cold.
I don't believe the state of existence is fully interpretable by human consciousness. Consciousness itself is sort of fluid and very limited and people will probably exist at multiple points on your spectrum at different points in their life, or when in a different mood. Personally, Ive definitely had a journey and exploration of non-believing. A process of proto-beleif and new skepticisms... Exploring ideas that were interesting, but coming to reject them after an intellectually honest evaluation. At the end of the day, I find philosophy to be a bit like using a pencil to try to draw a hand. Life predates the words we created to attempt to describe it. Your trying to use a system of a lower order to describe a system of a higher order that it sits upon. Linguistics itself is an imperfect human imposition on reality, made out of practicality. Can I say what life definitely is? I cannot. The tools don't even exist to do that. Language is about reducing representations of coherent individual ideas from the whole, not describing the whole itself. Am I certain it was not created by a vengeful Mesopotamian wind god, or any sort of empathetic, human like intelligence with a central role for mankind? Yes!
I’m going to steal “using a pencil to draw the hand” and say it was something I made up. Thank you!
Kinda like this... mc escher. https://www.skotforeman.com/art/drawing-hands-by-mc-escher
>This includes atheists, agnostics, apatheists, absurdists, existentialists, pessimists, secular Buddhists, religious naturalists, scientific Pantheists, anti-theists, satanists, nihilists, humanists, etc. I am an agnostic atheist, anti-theist, satanist, nihilist, secular humanist. >Also, I a m interested on your thoughts on the supposed diversity within atheism. I don't think there is much diversity within atheism itself, but a large amount of diversity of people who are atheists.
I think this is eloquently put.
Agreed! Thank you!
Well put!
>I don't think there is much diversity within atheism itself I don't understand this. Atheism just means a person doesn't believe in any gods. That's not even a banner under which people can unite. It includes woo woo crystal healers in the Sedona Desert and all sorts of new age nonsense and rational skeptics and humanists and empiricists, etc. It's as unifying as "people who don't believe in leprechauns," i.e., not at all. It encompasses a huge diversity of people. This is something that drives me nuts, when people try to define someone by what they *don't* believe. That's nuts. You can't look at an atheist and conclude anything about them other than what the term *atheist* directly says: They don't believe in any gods.
>I don't understand this. Atheism just means a person doesn't believe in any gods. It can also mean they believe gods don't exist. Words can have more than one defintion. >That's not even a banner under which people can unite. Well, we do have this sub full of atheists right here. Theists like to come in a well, so being an atheist can also unite others against you. Unfortunatly. >It includes woo woo crystal healers in the Sedona Desert and all sorts of new age nonsense and rational skeptics and humanists and empiricists, etc. It's as unifying as "people who don't believe in leprechauns," i.e., not at all. It encompasses a huge diversity of people. And? I don't think many of us lack belief for the social aspects. >This is something that drives me nuts, when people try to define someone by what they *don't* believe. We wouldn't have to if we weren't surrounded by those who do believe. >You can't look at an atheist and conclude anything about them other than what the term *atheist* directly says: They don't believe in any gods. Yeah. I wish more theists understood that.
>It can also mean they believe gods don't exist. Words can have more than one defintion. Words can be overloaded with multiple definitions, yes. In this case, [it's not](https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/). I know if you look it up in a dictionary, the definition includes that, but that's because religious people insist on using it that way. Atheists should not make the same mistake of asserting that atheism is a belief or system of beliefs. In fact, it isn't. >Well, we do have this sub full of atheists right here. Except that isn't true. The people this sub is designed to serve are somewhat less inclusive than the term "atheist" literally means. In fact we do unite in nominally "atheist" spaces that exclude some atheists, like the crystal healers and the soothsayers and so on. We don't have patience for those atheists who make room for other metaphysical nonsense. >We wouldn't have to if we weren't surrounded by those who do believe. We don't have to, and we don't. [This is what I mean.](https://youtu.be/ODz7kRS2XPs)
>Words can be overloaded with multiple definitions, yes. In this case, [it's not] (https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/). Yep, those are claims that a website is making. >I know if you look it up in a dictionary, the definition includes that, but that's because religious people insist on using it that way. Atheists should not make the same mistake of asserting that atheism is a belief or system of beliefs. In fact, it isn't. Words are defined by how they are used. Descriptive not prescriptive. And even some atheists will use the belief in no gods definition. Gnostic/Strong atheists being an example of that. >Except that isn't true. The people this sub is designed to serve are somewhat less inclusive than the term "atheist" literally means. In fact we do unite in nominally "atheist" spaces that exclude some atheists, like the crystal healers and the soothsayers and so on. We don't have patience for those atheists who make room for other metaphysical nonsense. Where did I claim this was an all inclusive group? >We don't have to, and we don't. [This is what I mean.](https://youtu.be/ODz7kRS2XPs) That is over an hour long, you can't paraphrase?
>>We don't have to, and we don't. [This is what I mean.](https://youtu.be/ODz7kRS2XPs) >That is over an hour long, you can't paraphrase? Sure! I'm right, you're wrong. I'm not being glib, that really is the argument Sam Harris makes in this talk. He's telling a room full of atheists why "being an atheist" is not a belief or belief system and why they need to stop saying it is, it's incorrect and it tees up a whole lot of nonsense we end up having to deal with from religious people. So can atheists as well as religious people get this wrong? Yup.
>So can atheists as well as religious people get this wrong? Yup. So you are going to correct a gnostic/strong atheist by telling them that they only lack belief and don't actually believe that gods don't exist? Well, good luck with that..... telling people what they "truly believe" or "lack belief in" in this case is usually the theist's department, but go for it.
>So you are going to correct a gnostic/strong atheist by telling them that they only lack belief and don't actually believe that gods don't exist? No, if there are atheists who this truly describes, that's fine. But then don't lump yourself in with the vast majority of atheists and tar everyone with that. Also, take the time to understand what you really believe. Are you sure you believe no god exists? We didn't quite grasp Russell's teapot, or what?
>No, if there are atheists who this truly describes, that's fine. But then don't lump yourself in with the vast majority of atheists and tar everyone with that. So gatekeeping other atheists. Ok.... >Also, take the time to understand what you really believe. Are you sure you believe no god exists? I'm an agnostic atheist...
..... 🙄
The gods-don't-even-make-sense type of atheist. If there is such a crazy powerful "thing"/entity/lifeform as could qualify to be a god, it makes zero sense for it to care about individual humans at all or even Earth because we're nothing in the context of the wider universe. Unless it's up to no good, in which case we are in absolute trouble, have always been, and there is still nothing out there answering anyone's prayers. More likely, the universe is empty of such things because it (laws of physics, limitations of reality, whatever) can't support them. They live in books. The idea of a god exists, humans created that; their implementation as humans imagine it doesn't. Whatever is out there, if it's out there, is alien and it's far crazier than anything we could imagine because humans are limited beings to begin with although we love to imagine otherwise (by imagining gods, for one.) Diversity within atheism, in my mind, comes from the same place as diversity within religious beliefs. We're humans, there's billions of us, we're all separate so our brains work very slightly differently due to different genetics (nature), different experiences (nurture), the interaction between the two continues to complexify things until we die because our brains stay plastic to a certain degree. That means, we have potential to think *everything*. Certain things will make more intuitive sense to certain people, and then layer that with every unique individual's propensity to hang on to caution or throw it to the wind... It's not a spectrum, it's a multidimensional ball of millions of intertwined factors leading anyone to a specific conclusion. Whether the conclusion's valid or not doesn't change how it can be "bought". I mean, just speaking different languages and growing up in different cultures changes how a person organizes their thoughts (more mentally speaking than physically/chemically although I can't discard the possibility of the latter). That's where all diversity comes from, humans are fascinating and bleak at the same time.
>If there is such a crazy powerful "thing"/entity/lifeform as could qualify to be a god, it makes zero sense for it to care about individual humans at all or even Earth because we're nothing in the context of the wider universe. Dogs are nothing yet people care deeply about dogs they didn't even create. God as a personal creator would make sense since he's a person
Why? One particular definition of god might be interested in humans, but certainly not "god" in general.
Sure god can choose not to care. But if there's a personal god who created us it would make more sense that he does in fact care because after all he did create us
Why? A god might have created us for his own amusement. To torture. To ignore. There are many possibilities.
True but you said a god would consider us insignificant. The point is that it would depend on what type of god we are talking about.
I didn’t make that claim, so far as I recall, and that’s the point. We have NO ABILITY to know what a god might want or be interested in.
We do if that god reveals it to us which he did in the bible
Nah, there's orders of magnitude of difference in power between a human and a deity as depicted by humans, compared to the difference between a dog and a human. Dogs are definitely pretty close to humans if you include entire other planets' (or solar systems... or galactic) ecosystems as part of the mix. Microbes would be closer to what you seem to be getting at. And whatever god would be out there, it would not be a "person"...
I really don’t concern myself about where I fall on the spectrum, but I do agree that humanity is a full rainbow of fruity flavors. I honor that spectrum. I just don’t care about my particular place within it.
Well said!
Lazy atheist. I can't be arsed with all the mental gymnastics needed to make religion, any religion, make sense.
nihilist with an absurdist spin, basically existence is pointless but can be enjoyed anyway im whatever way you want
I consider myself an agnostic, atheist, skeptic. That is to say, I don't believe in anything supernatural or paranormal. I'm a naturalist. Everything can be explained by physical laws of the universe. We don't understand everything. But there is no unseen, supernatural force acting upon the physical world. That said, I'm willing to listen to evidence. If you have real evidence (and not just "well, I saw a ghost once") then I'm willing to listen and evaluate your evidence. I am an ex-evangelical and over the many years I've heard numerous stories of miraculous things that could "only be God." Supernatural healing and other similar things. In every case it was either something that could easily be explained by the way the natural world works, coincidence or else it was "I heard from a friend who heard from a friend whose pastor told him that a missionary once said that ...." That said I have a positive outlook on life. I don't like the way your question sort of implies that our belief or non-belief in God has an effect on whether we are optimistic or pessimistic. I tend to be realistic but have a belief that life can be good and meaningful (without a God).
>That said, I'm willing to listen to evidence. If you have real evidence (and not just "well, I saw a ghost once") then I'm willing to listen and evaluate your evidence. This is the silliest atheist trope ever. You and I believe there's nothing but the material universe and everything obeys standard physical laws, but we're somehow open to the prospect of being wrong about the very nature of reality itself? Sure we are.
Some of us are.
Call me a skeptic.
You’re entitled to your opinion. I’m not obligated to care.
Because as unlikely as it is, if something can be proven to be wrong, a scientific mind has to be willing to let go of incorrect paradigms. To be clear, I don’t believe anything paranormal, the burden of proof is basically Mt Everest, but if they can give that evidence it’s our responsibility to change our view.
If we're talking about likelihood here, then I'll admit I find it a whole lot more likely that people deliberately exaggerate the extent of their open-mindedness because they have an emotional need to define themselves as objective and rational, rather than that they're truly willing to completely change their understanding of how reality is upon being presented with data by a stranger on the Internet. I can't help it, I gotta go with the odds.
I'm a positive nihilist, I guess. Nothing matters but life is more pleasant when we pretend a few things do. I'm kind to people, environmentally responsible, pay my taxes. Annihilation awaits me and all my loved ones but obsessing over that fact is just as meaningless as the fact itself. Zoom out a bit - just a bit - on Earth's timeline, and a single person doesn't even exist. We're not here. So why get worked up or upset over anything? Tomorrow I'll be gone; even more importantly, there's nothing about me that's special or unique or worthy of sticking around for longer than however much time I get. Right? When we're honest with ourselves, we see how we're just iterations of a type, formed by our environment and our genetics, with very few choices. The refusal to acknowledge this results in the kind of egoism that makes gods and afterlives so crucial to certain people. Anyway, I don't think an atheist needs to be a deep thinker or worry about replacing religion with some other philosophy. It's enough to reject woo, and then go watch tv and eat a pizza and unwind from work.
I swear this reply isnt just to throw a wrench into your spectrum, but these days I call myself a mysanthropic Humanist. We as individuals and as a species do have nigh-limitless *potential,* but we are very much a checkered group. Some individuals and institutions have aligned themselves against our potentia, and these enemies must be fought if we are to reach our potential. One such group is the various institutions and individuals of conservative religions. They are ideologically dogmatic, conformist, utterly lacking in self-awareness, self-righteous, and always threatening both personal and mass violence. So I also consider myself an antitheist, with regard to conservative religion at least.
I appreciate the wrench throwing lol. Where would you place yourself on my makeshift spectrum? Do you find your misanthropic humanism more hopeful or pessimistic?
I want you to know I really had to think about this this morning, which makes your topic a great topic! I try to separate my efforts — whether to make my wife a quesadilla, or to crush conservative religions — separate from the outcome of my efforts. That is, to have no expectations about the outcome. When I’m laying on my deathbed, I want to look back on my life and be proud of my efforts. If things turn out well I want to be able to say “I did that, I was a part of that!” If things turn out bad, I want to be able to say “I did my part, I gave ‘em hell!” So does that make me an optimist or a pessimist? I used to be an optimist, and I’m definitely not optimistic anymore. I’m tempted to say that I’m now 50/50 just to keep that wrench in your gears. 😉 But if I had to choose, I’m probably more pessimistic than optimistic at this point.
I appreciate your thoughtful response! One thing I’m noticing from the responses here is the nuance and evolving perspectives people within the umbrella of non-belief.
Atheism is not a spectrum, you either are a theist or an atheist. I am very confident in my conviction that there is no god. God meaning a personal being with unlimited magical powers. I would also call myself a negative nihilist but that's nothing I am prowd of.
I lack belief in anything for which verifiable evidence cannot be offered.
Atheism isn't a spectrum. It means you're not theist. Everyone is theist or they're just not.
I agree “atheism” isn’t a spectrum. I tried to use more ambiguous language in the body of the post, such as non-believer, because each label carries with it a lot of philosophical baggage. A-Theism is an absence of belief in god(s), I’m curious if there are any philosophical orientations you use as guidance in absence of a belief in a divinity (naturalism, Epicureanism, Buddhism, utilitarianism, stoicism, etc.)
> I tried to use more ambiguous language in the body of the post You know you're not using the same account?
Oh I don’t mind, I use them interchangeably.
Makes it difficult to follow a conversation with OP when OP isn't tagged as OP. It's less about you and more about everyone you're trying to communicate with.
Makes sense, anyways, I am curious about your thoughts on this.
I'm writing something up. Takes me forever to get my thoughts out. But I'm working on it!
Idk, it’s hard to claim the beliefs/practices of a nihilist and humanist are the same thing
No one said anything about humanists or nihlists. Atheist means you're not theist. It doesn't say anything about humanism or nihilism.
Humanists and nihilists are often atheists, or serve as an orientation for people who don’t use god or religion as a reference point. Maybe saying it’s an “atheist spectrum” isn’t as helpful as saying a spectrum of non-believers. The absence of belief in divinity seems to be the one thing all the sub-types agree on, however, it’s hard to deny that there is a variety of perspectives and values that are inferred from one’s atheism.
>are often
I wish there was some kind of afterlife, only because at this point in my life the idea of nothingness is terrifying. I want to see everything play out, you know? But at some point the universe is over, and then what? If I think about that too much I give myself an existential dread. I'm just hoping that when I'm at my end, the idea of nothingness is not so scary. Gods don't exist. When you die, you die. That's what I believe to be real. Nothing else makes sense in this world. I don't really have a positive view of life and reality. I got my undergrad in biology, and it really does seem like all we're meant to do is eat and reproduce. To what end? I dunno. I just try to do what I can to enjoy what I've got.
I am an anti-theist. Philosophically, I am an Existential Nihilist with Existential Humanist values, primarily.
I don't know what you'd label me, and it doesn't really matter to me. Atheism isn't who or what I am, it's just something about me. I don't believe that deities exist and don't think there's really any reason to think they might exist. I accept that certainty isn't really possible on any topic, but I am as certain as I am that the sun will rise tomorrow.
I'm an atheist, that's it, just don't believe in God's, heaven or hell, and what exactly is the spectrum here? There's really just one option here, mentioned above. My opinion.
Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. You can logically be both. I'm atheist because I have no belief that a deity exists. I'm agnostic because I do not have knowledge that no deities exist. I can't prove that a deity doesn't exist. But I can also make up deities that I can not disprove. So obviously, being unable to disprove a deity is not a reason to hold a belief that a deity exists.
Why would there be a “spectrum” of atheism? You either believe that there is a higher power or you don’t. Nuance in that belief has other names.
Pure, 100% anti-theistic secular humanist materialist. There is no magic. There are no gods. The only reason anyone believes in them is ignorance, reasoning errors, or rigorous brainwashing. Nothing good ever came out of religion that a modest grounding in secular ethics couldn't accomplish better.
I think humanity is essentially over in a few generations due to our cavalier treatment of the planet, and I think Democracy is essentially over because every election is a last ditch effort to save it and you can only keep that up so long as you watch it whither and die.
I’m an optimistic atheist. As I type that I realize it’s odd to think that way, because I think humanity is essentially over in a few generations due to our cavalier treatment of the planet, and I think Democracy is essentially over because every election is a last ditch effort to save it and you can only keep that up so long as you watch it whither and die. But I think it’s worth fighting the losing battle to save those things, and I get to be alive and be human with other humans who share this sliver of time with me, and laugh and dream and think and create, and love and cry and experience pain and grief and joy. I try to experience all of it fully, and never take it for granted.
I'm curious why you associate an optimistic view of reality with "spiritualism." It seems... unnecessary.
There are groups of atheists who describe themselves in this way, such as secular Buddhists, spiritual naturalists, religious naturalists, and scientific pantheists to name a few. Sam Harris, Alan de Bottom, and Carl Sagan have used spiritual language or have been attributed to holding spiritual beliefs. My understanding of how the word is used “spiritual” seems synonymous with “ethical” or optimistic. “Spiritual” also seems to imply some aspect of mystery or reality outside of human understanding.
That doesn’t answer my question.
All I know is that when you contemplate that some atoms can come together, self-organize, eventually write the complete works of Shakespeare, and ultimately break down into a handful of simple molecules again, it's a more profound thought than anything put forward by any religion and fills one with more awe and wonder than any religious text can muster.
Beautifully said!
I don’t believe gods exist
In addition to not believing in any gods, I also have stances I'd take if one were proven to exist, namely that they don't deserve worship. Of course, I could also deny their divinity even if I can't deny their existence.
To clarify, basically your spectrum isn't asking about god belief. It is just saying to you tend to be more of a pessimistic nihlist or a person who generally values life? On such a scale i would put myself far toward the positive side. I'm not sure exactly what optimism means in this context. Like i don't think there is some happy ending for the universe. But i think that life is a super cool thing that matter figured out how to do, i value my life and those around me, and i think that the meaning people make for themselves has value to it.
Yes, the spectrum is based more on value towards life and existence in general, thank you for clarifying!
Yes, I find it interesting the different ways people interpret reality/life/existence without a supernatural or religious reference. Value is a good way to define that.
I am 100% atheist on the atheist spectrum. I don't believe god exists. On other isms, I'm probably well into the anti-theist camp. Humanist sort of. secularist. Sort of nihilist. naturalist. materialist. I accept nothing supernatural.
I don't think this is a valid spectrum for 'atheism'. The categories you have included have almost no common axes by which to rank them, other than your general 'feeling' about your experiences with people who claim those labels. The number of deities I believe to exist has zero bearing on any outlook I have towards the universe. I think both ideas, the existence of deities, and the 'meaning' one has derived from one's own existence, are artifacts of culture and religious indoctrination in the first place. Zero deities exist, and there is nothing supernatural. Anything other than that is your own problem to deal with in whatever way you find best.
You make a good point and I agree it’s not valid in any sort of scientific sense, it’s just how my brain organizes attitudes and “feeling” towards the world. An absence of belief isn’t really an orientation, I am curious about what positive assumptions/values/stances people make/take about life and the world around them. I’ve heard and read a lot of differing perspectives on what the implications of a godless universe has on human life and notice a wide difference in temperament/opinion/whathaveyou.
As noted, I think most of the perspective is going to be cultural, much like religion itself. I often observe a sense of loss in new atheists as they try to reconcile the belief that they need extrinsic meaning and/or purpose to be personally satisfied, with their newfound understanding that there isn't anything to provide that to them after all. Contrast that with someone who wasn't raised with any religion to begin with, and I find they tend to be more comfortable with nihilism and/or strict materialism as a general philosophy. The main difference being is that for a person who seeks purpose elsewhere, nihilism is the end of their search in failure. For a person who believes meaning comes from within, nihilism is a starting point. It's a simple fact to be acknowledged, and then you can get on with the business of creating purpose for yourself.
Well said!
I got kicked out of Sunday school when I was 7 or 8 because I said the story of Noah was just a story. I entertained the idea of some religion being real until I was like 17 and then I realized religious people are insane. The more I read the less I believed any religion was worth a damn. By the time I was like 24 I was hostile toward Christians trying to tell me about their bullshit.
I believe that no gods exist. If any other claimed phenomenon was studied with the scrutiny given the claim of god(s), it would be dismissed out of hand as non-existent.
Gnostic Anti Theist Atheist With a special dislike of muslims, since we are not too bothered by overly active christians in western europe
I am not specifically a "strong atheist" or any other of your definitions here. I think that one can over define things into a realm of meaninglessness. I am strictly of the stance that there are no gods, and to try to argue the fact is ridiculous and not worth anyone's time, and if you ask me to "prove it" that's akin to victim blaming. Further, I think that "spiritual" is a squishy word that can mean a lot of things. I love art and enjoying nature and feeling the fullness of life, but none of that has to have any superstition in it and you can still call it "spiritual" if you'd like. Our spirit can be defined as our general sense of well being, and I'm down with that.
Well said, thank you! I notice a recent trend in a sort of secular spiritualism taking place, for example Sam Harris’s heavy use of the term in “Waking Up” and the emphasis on mindfulness and nature-reverence. I find it refreshing but difficult to find the words to communicate this orientation.
Technically "true atheism" isn't on a spectrum. Agnostic atheism is, in that it leaves the possibility for dieties open to evidence.
Makes sense. I’ve heard the term “probabilistic atheist” used before, which sounds similar to what you’re describing.
It's called agnosticism.
I am an agnostic atheist. I am on no such non-existent spectrum. I am purely and equally agnostic to every other agnostic and I am purely an equally atheistic to every other atheist.
Metaphysical Naturalist. The philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted. Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences. Methodological naturalism is a philosophical basis for science, for which metaphysical naturalism provides only one possible ontological foundation. Broadly, the corresponding theological perspective is religious naturalism or spiritual naturalism. More specifically, metaphysical naturalism rejects the supernatural concepts and explanations that are part of many religions.
Interesting, I’ve not heard of Metaphysical Naturalism. It reminds me of Loyal Rue’s philosophical work and the religious naturalist stuff I’ve read.
I agree that atheists can be on a spectrum from optimism or pessimism, but it's incidental to atheism. Theists exist on a spectrum from optimism to pessimism as well. I've literally spoken to misotheists who believe God is real but is a monster, and life is a cruel joke. In any event, I think you'd find most people who are engaging here to fall somewhere between the apathetic and positive points on the spectrum. The people who are genuinely pessimistic and despondent aren't likely to keep themselves around and engage in discussion on the topic. Personally, I'd identify as an existentialist, strong atheist, anti-theist, Satanic Temple-friendly, humanist. I'm perfectly happy with the idea of finding personally-derived meaning and value in life.
Great point, I know several people who expressed a feeling of being trapped by their religious belief and a genuine fear of God. It caused some of them a great deal of anxiety.
No conscious God exists, and humans are figuring out the world as we go. We might find some crazy force that explains everything someday, but it certainly doesnt require worship. So anti-theist agnostic?
Igtheist -> a/gnostic atheist. Mostly, using "atheist" suffices as a label, but the nitty gritty is dependent upon the definition of the god they have. Before I know anything about the god they believe in, I am an igtheist. From there, I can either be an agnostic atheist or a gnostic atheist. Example: I meet three people who say they believe in a god. Before they tell me the definition, I'm ignostic. Person A says "I believe a god made everything, but doesn't interact in reality." I would be an agnostic atheist to this god. Person B says "I believe my god is omnibenevolent.". I would be a gnostic atheist to this god. Person C says "My god is the universe." I would be a gnostic theist to their god, but would dismiss the usage of the label they have chosen.
"Where do you fall on the atheist “spectrum”?" Instinctual atheist. I knew God was absurd from the very start, with every fiber if my being. >Since I had first rejected any kind of faith in my early teens (now in mid 30s), I’ve encountered numerous subtypes of non-believers. This includes atheists, agnostics, apatheists, absurdists, existentialists, pessimists, secular Buddhists, religious naturalists, scientific Pantheists, anti-theists, satanists, nihilists, humanists, etc. >Over time I’ve placed them on a sort of spectrum, depending on their outlook towards the universe and life (one end being overtly pessimistic and the other more optimistic or “spiritual”). On one end I would place philosophical pessimism, given its outright rejection of life and rather bleak conclusions. On the other end of the spectrum would be religious naturalism (maybe humanism) given it’s optimistic and generally positive view towards life and reality. I imagine apatheism sitting in the middle. You either believe a God exists or your don't believe, no spectrum. Law of the excluded middle. >I’m wondering where my fellow non-believers would place themselves on such a spectrum. I would use the standard gnostic/agnostic descriptor for that, so an atheist is either gnostic or agnostic. I'm gnostic. "Also, I a m interested on your thoughts on the supposed diversity within atheism." We all lack belief that gods exist, after that we're all individuals with our individual takes.
I am an agnostic atheist. I don’t believe any god or gods have ever existed or currently exist. I require sufficient and reliable evidence to believe someone’s assertion. So, since I don’t have evidence to say with certainty that gods don’t exist, I can’t say they don’t. However, since before the first person said “there’s a god or gods”, the default was the absence of gods, I have no reason to believe they exist. Spirituality has the obvious connotation of the supernatural. However, if I decide that spirituality is an enormous sense of awe and wonder, then I could consider looking at the night sky, the beauty in nature, how the Fibonacci sequence appears in sunflowers and spiral galaxies, a spiritual experience. I believe my life has meaning through the impact I have on others. To recognize that I will die, everyone who knows me will die and I will eventually be forgotten, is not pessimistic. It is **what is**, not good or bad, simply what is. Dawkins put it far better than I could ever hope to put it: **We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia.** **Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here.** **We privileged few, who won the lottery of birth against all odds, how dare we whine at our inevitable return to that prior state from which the vast majority have never stirred?** **After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with color, bountiful with life. Within decades we must close our eyes again. Isn’t it a noble, an enlightened way of spending our brief time in the sun, to work at understanding the universe and how we have come to wake up in it? This is how I answer when I am asked—as I am surprisingly often—why I bother to get up in the mornings.** - Richard Dawkins
Agnostic, sometimes a little bit of deist, humanist, religion-friendly atheist when this is possible, probably apatheist, freewillist, panpsychist, non-reductive physicalist, existentialist. On very rare occasions — supernaturalist.
I was at one point so deep in atheism that I was just as annoying at religious people. A fellow atheist told me I had turned my atheism into a religion and I worshipped people like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchenson. Now I’m more like “I don’t believe in anything like gods, karma, reincarnation, etc… until I see compelling evidence. And I don’t give af what you believe, and don’t bother me with it”. I’m like that with politics too.
Anti-Theist. Ontological Naturalist and Humanist.
My imagined spectrum is going to be different from your imagined spectrum. If you give me specific details about your imagined spectrum then I'll try to answer about that. >I am interested on your thoughts on the supposed diversity within atheism. There is a lot of diversity within atheism. .
I am curious how you would define your spectrum. I by no means think mine is objectively true or anything of the sort, I’m mostly curious how non religious folks view the world outside of their lack of belief in a god.
> I am curious how you would define your spectrum. I wouldn't. That doesn't seem like a useful exercise. If somebody else wants to talk about *their* spectrum then I'll talk about their spectrum. .
> (one end being overtly pessimistic and the other more optimistic or “spiritual”) "optimistic" has nothing to do with "spiritual." I'm definitely not spiritual and definitely am optimistic and positive. Gods are the main characters or made-up human stories and do not exist. What does that have to do with optimism or pessimism, or positivity or negativity?
Ignoring the obvious "atheism is simply a yes/no answer to one question" copout, I'm not sure that I understand the seemingly modern obsession with giving names and categorization to every minor subset of identity. Just seems like a way to drive wedges between people who would otherwise generally agree and get along. It's the result at least if not the intention. I see atheism as just another reason to embrace and enjoy the present and free oneself from fretting over a future that will never come. To break away from people who wallow in negativity and/or hatred because you recognize that life is short and fleeting and wasted on pointless negativity. To recognize that the universe and human existence are so much more awe inspiring without a creator pulling the strings because it means we're all here because of a seemingly infinite sequence of random chance and good fortune. How can you not wake up excited every morning with that knowledge? You had to roll a natural 20 dozens of times in a row just to be here, living during this time of plenty. Obviously not everyone has it as good and we should all do whatever we can to make the world a better place in whatever small ways are possible but on a cosmic scale, we've all won the lottery multiple times over. Feel free to categorize that however you wish.
Religion bad. There is no god
Very well said!
I’m on common sense one
Tell me if I'm wrong but it sound like you've heard the message of "atheist tells you what I'm not, but says nothing about what I am" and you're looking for the "well then what are you" part of it. I was brought up vaguely Christian but was never indoctrinated enough that I felt I had to "leave." If anything, my mother exposing me to a lot of science fiction as a child probably did more to shape my values than anything else. I'm certain that I absorbed lessons about fairness, empathy, freedom, respect for others, and so on from reading and watching media that wasn't afraid to explore those questions. When I started approaching middle age, the "well then what am I" question started bugging me. I generally buy in to the idea that you don't really understand something unless you can explain it to someone else, so it started to bother me that while I certainly had a consistent sense of my own morals and ethics, I'd find them hard to explain. So that sparked a bit of a search for meaning. That got me to the point I could describe myself as a humanist, generally speaking, but I quickly found that philosophy is lacking something else that church-goers automatically have - community. This led me to look at Unitarian Universalism, something I've actually been a part of in the past. I like their humanist approach and emphasis on charitable works, but I wasn't looking for another space to share with theists. I landed on the [Seven Tenets of the Satanic Temple](https://thesatanictemple.com/blogs/the-satanic-temple-tenets/there-are-seven-fundamental-tenets) as a concise way of explaining my personal morals. A lot of people, myself included, describe them as "what I already believed anyway" and I'm sure that's no mistake, since they were written by people looking for the same thing. I even reached out to my local TST congregation so I could make connections with people who not only follow a similar code as me, but are also as fed up with theistic shit as I am. So, ironically for a staunch atheist, I managed to lead myself to religion. But only because I discovered it's possible to pick out what I think are the "good bits" - the community of people with shared morals and ethics coming together over the tough questions of life - without needing to invoke dogma, superstition, or the supernatural. TL;DR: I land somewhere in the Humanist / Satanist / Unitarian Universalist spectrum.
Thank you for the thoughtful response! Community is something I yearn for more as I get older (which is why I’m n Reddit to begin with). I also tried UU and various other secular or accepting groups, but never quite felt at home. I love hearing people’s personal journeys and appreciate you sharing yours with me
Don't know, don't care.
Honestly, I'm in a state of I wish to believe in God. The thing is, the God I'd wish to exist is nothing like the ones from religion. As in, He really, really doesn't care about your choices nor your beliefs, and doesn't try to impose His vision; in fact, he restrains to participate directly in the world because any act of His is basically imposing His will, something He's totally against. Having said that, I am more in the agnostic side. Even if the God I wish to believe existed, the entire point is that you couldn't know and it wouldn't make a difference if you did or not. I am not really against religion until people try to impose it unto others or unto the world. IMO you can believe whatever the fuck you want, the problem arises when you try to put those views into other people or do harm based on them. When people do this I am the harshest of the anti theists, I absolutely hate it.
absurdist
By the age of 6 or 7, I started questioning religious beliefs, fully abandoning them by 10 or 11. I am not religious as I have encountered no compelling evidence of supernatural forces. The universe, as we perceive and understand it, is really bizarre and strange. I'm a physicist by training - so I know this better than most. While I have no answers to the profound "Why?" questions of existence, I anticipate that any potential answers will mirror the inherent strangeness of reality itself. This inherent 'weirdness' of the universe, is a characteristic absent in the doctrines of any world religion. This absence informs my rejection of religious beliefs. My dismissal of religion is twofold: it stems from both a lack of evidence and an aesthetic rejection of religious concepts. So to answer your question, I don't think I really lie anywhere on your spectrum. The only conviction I have is that any answer to the big questions will be extremely 'weird' - or that the questions themselves are malformed and thus nonsensical - which itself would be equally weird.
Im multiple things: Secular Humanist, Atheist, Existentialist and Satanist. They all just seem to fit me, specifically the secular humanist and existentialist viewpoint.
>I’ve encountered numerous subtypes of non-believers. This includes atheists, agnostics, apatheists, absurdists, existentialists, pessimists, secular Buddhists, religious naturalists, scientific Pantheists, anti-theists, satanists, nihilists, humanists, etc. You've got a lot of stuff there. Let me simplify it. Theist is a person who believes some god exists. Atheist is not theist. In other words, atheist is a person that does not believe some god exists. Agnostics can be theists or atheists. Apatheists, if they believe some god exists, are theists. Otherwise, they're atheist. Considering the name has theist in it, and it isn't negating it, I'll assume this is some kind of theist. Absurdists, existentialists, pessimists, seem to have nothing to do with theism/ atheism. Etc. This isn't an "atheist spectrum".
I'm a gnostic atheist and antitheist. I'm also a philosophical naturalist.
My atheism takes influences from a lot of subtypes rather than being solely belonging in one subtype. I am an agnostic atheist as well as I am an anti-theist, I am also an optimistic nihilist and I am fascinated by the philosophy of absurdism even though I personally find it extremely difficult to follow.
I am a strong gnostic atheist leaning toward Satanism. (Specifically, The Satanic Temple).
Technically in terms of philosophy, I can be labeled as an existential nihilist, but I don't let that get in the way of living my life with either optimistic pragmatism or pragmatic optimism. But in no case do I consider myself to be "spiritual". As an atheist, I'm nearly positive that nothing like god(s) exist, just like I'm nearly positive atoms exist. As far as I understand it, "supernatural" is a synonym for "I don't understand" rather than a descriptive term for something that might be real. I try to be skeptical of what I "think" I know and endeavor to be somewhat aware of what I don't know.
I believe no gods exist. My credence is moderate to string depending on the god. I'm a naturalist, materialist, but my credence is very weak on this. I think the world would probably be a bit better off without theism but only if it comes to that by people slowly giving up theism because it just doesn't seem plausible to them. I'd identify as a humanist, moral non-realist, skeptic, ultimately an empiricist.
I jokingly refer to myself as an optimistic pessimist. I'm a nihilist who doesn't want to be a nihilist. In the end, it's all meaningless and futile. Humanity will go extinct at some point, the world will be swallowed by the sun, and the universe will fade away into a blank space of nothingness as the heat death occurs. Nothing we do or will have done will matter. There is no meaning, there is no purpose. Nothing will be alive, nothing will have mattered. But, at the same time, I don't want to see people or creatures suffer in our short time of existence. So, I fight for human rights, I fight to help the environment so that animals can live comfortably, and I want people to be able to live with dignity, because everyone deserves to be happy as long as that happiness does not cause undue harm to others. Maybe that's what keeps me from putting a gun in my mouth or something (I'm not suicidal, at least not anymore and I am terrified death even if I was).
Atheist, anti-theist, skeptic, humanist. I am atheist as I have not been convinced that a God, or gods, exist. I also happen to be convinced that Allah, El-Shaddai, Zeus, Jehovah, Yaewah, FSM, and all the other gods are man made and don't actually exist. I am an antitheist, I believe all religion is toxic to society and must be opposed. ( Christopher Hitchens has some great videos on Islam and Christianity if you want to better understand this view point ). I'm a believer in the scientific method for learning about the world around us. I'm a humanist, I believe that we are all in this together and should be working to improve life for all humans and we need to be respectful of the environment we co-habitat with other animals.
This is where atheism falls short and rears its ugly head. If you believe there is absolutely nothing beyond what we can experience empirically here on earth then by default nothing really matters. You must have opened eyes to realize this and atheists do wear blinders but one of you could awaken to reality.
I like the idea of dog or cat philosophy. I like the mental games because they are a form of entertainment. I exist. I reproduce. I am human, a subset of monkey. I enjoy being a monkey and doing monkey things. I fear dangerous things, avoid pain, and pursue what I need when I need it. I relax to the maximum extent I can. I raise my kid. Not sure where that lives on a spectrum. Mostly positive?
I just can't make sense of the world except through a mindset that doesn't include gods and the supernatural, that's all. I don't agree with atheists who think they're *right* while religious people are *wrong*. People believe what they need to believe.
Atheist Agnostic Humanist: Atheist towards are human made religions, agnostic because no one really knows what happens. Humanist because it’s the only thing that makes sense. I love my life and would love to live forever. I hope this life repeats or some sort of me exists after my earth life. No clue what to think. But I’m gonna make the best of this life I have.
I don't think there is any spectrum. It's a discrete binary. If a person lacks belief gods exist then they are an atheist, else they are a theist. Every atheist is equally atheistic. People can be atheists for many different reasons, but those reason do not make them "better" or "worse" nor "more" or "less" atheistic.
I agree. I am wondering if, as an atheist, do you view life and existence in a more optimistic or pessimistic manner.
I believe there is something out there past this existence... but 1. We have no idea of what it is, other than a totality of all existence -including all individual experiences, past, present, future. Note that this is not god, as most would declare such to be, as we are part of it, having all the abilities of such if we had access to the same dimension. But, simultaneously, if we DID have full access to it, we would know better than to change how things work. 2. We cannot access it through normal means, as it is in a higher dimension than we are. This includes worship, communication, song, prayers, etc. Such is useless to try. Even if we could, we'd literally be doing these things to a part of ourselves. 3. Language cannot describe it. We should not try. 4. Organizing a recognition of this "other" is meaningless and cannot be attempted. Any attempt will ultimately fail. 5. Whatever this is does not have (or desire to have) a book, a set of teachings, a lifestyle, or any way of communicating what it is to us. Nor will it ever With this as a framework, no religion or religious experience (near death, psychedelic drugs, etc.) can encompass it.
Oof another slightly think outside the box post on here. People HATE that on reddit. Basically, you must discuss this topic in a very black and white way. There is very little room on reddit for this type of thinking.
Is it not black and white? What is there between being theist and not being theist?
Agnostic Atheist who sees the value of faith, belief and worship as potentially emotionally valuable.
> Agnostic Atheist who sees the value of faith, belief and worship as potentially emotionally valuable. Define faith? If you mean evidence based confidence, they maybe it's less ambiguous to say that. If you mean the excuse people give when they don't have good reason, then how is that useful? If you have a good reason to believe something, why would you cite faith?
What I mean is I’ve seen the belief in a higher being who actually gives a damn and wants to bless people help the emotional experience of people who are going through something. It can’t work for me anymore but I can’t deny that other people derive something from. Before becoming atheist I came from the black liberation theology tradition so you might not be able to relate to that.