Types of Atheism

So it seems to me that there are different types of atheism, and it does each a disservice to use one word in describing them all. That is how strawmen are erected and understandings are missed. So here is my attempt at a catalogue, with non-meaningful labels:

- Type I - The atheist that will say they actively believe that there is NO god. I would call this a positive belief, since it makes a statement concerning the nature of the universe.

- Type II - The atheist that will say they don't believe in god. This is different in that this atheist will not assert the non-existence of god, and may accept the possibility. Until this person receives positive evidence of god, the belief will remain the same, since a universal negative (there is no god) cannot be proven.

- Type III - The atheist that has no belief in god, like the type two, but doesn't care whether there is or isn't one. Sees no need for god or religious belief, or even Type I atheism at all.

Whaddaya think? Is it accurate? Complete?

Worthwhile?

 

Freaker, welcome back. Yes, I'd say worthwhile, as always. It seems you have a continuum here, shading into agnosticism (Type IV). This is classifying atheism on the basis of strength of rejection of a God. However, there's another dimension to consider: content of atheist belief (e.g.,naturalist, humanist, freethinker) emphasizing different positive beliefs/values that disbelievers in God may have. Somebody cleverer than I might put the two dimensions together & come up with a more complicated classification scheme. Is there a social scientist in the house?

 

That's certainly a valid classification.

Doesn't agnosticism encompass types II and III?

Also, care to expound on the other dimension(s)?

 

It’s good to see someone thinking through the variables of atheism.

You might put the three types into one classification titled “belief-based” and then create a separate classification titled “evidence-based.”

“It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” (William K. Clifford’s The Ethics of Belief)

If an individual cannot list the several steps of logic that rely on evidence to support a conclusion, then the conclusion is belief-based. A belief-based atheism is as logically invalid as a belief-based theism.

Why does an individual not believe that a god exists? First define what “god” means. If the definition of “god” is unknown, then it is irrational to claim a disbelief in a thing that is unknown.

What evidence supports the disbelief? Atheism usually claims that religions are immoral so therefore a god cannot exist. Theism usually claims that it is moral. What is the definition of “moral?” Without verifiable evidence of what morals are, both atheism and theism are logically invalid and belief-based. Western philosophy has debated the definitions of ethics, morals, right, wrong, good, bad, and many other terms for over two thousand years, and it is a certainty that the general public cannot define morals.

It is rare to find anyone who can state as few as three logic steps that have supporting evidence. The evidence-based atheist should not classified in the same type as the believers.

 

I think it's all belief-based. I don't see how it's logically possible to derive conclusions about "ought" from observations about "is", although ethical naturalists try to do that. Do we help the old lady across the street, let her fend for herself, or give her a shove in front of an oncoming car? We can derive an answer from any of several ethical systems, but it ultimately depends on our sensibilities, empathy and sense of duty, which are culturally conditioned and rooted in what is functional for society--not necessarily for ourselves. Intuition, choice, and social conditioning have more to do with it than logic and evidence.

 

Surely some evidence must exist, else why would atheists believe in atheism?

 

I was mainly referring to the last paragraph that talks about ethics and morals, and as a panentheist (that's not a typo) I hesitate to speak for atheists and theists. I think both perceive some evidence in support of their beliefs. Theists tend to emphasize evidence of design: the fine tuning of the universe, the improbability of biogenesis, the phenomenon of consciousness, individual religious expeiences of the divine, etc. Most atheists I know are impressed by the ability of science to explain phenomena that were once attributed to god(s), as well as the implausibility of prevailing Abrahamic concepts of God in light of scientific findings. I don't think logic and evidence can prove either position. If that's what's required, I guess agnosticism is the safest or most reasonable position, but I'm a gambler and rely on intuition, as well as facts and logic, to guide my decisions. So I'm betting on God, with full knowledge that I could be mistaken, as I so often am about many other things. I require some evidence for my beliefs and try not to believe anything that's contrary to logic and evidence. My standard is substantial evidence, less than scientific or courtroom proof, but enough for a reasonable person to rely on in making a decision in a situation of uncertainty. I think atheists could reasonably bet the opposite, based on their own judgment, experience and perspectives.

 

Actually, my first post was meant as a tease with the hope that the logic-seeking atheism might become self-critical and recognize that a disbelief not founded on evidence is but a belief. I have observed how numerous writers of intellectual fame have flown the atheist flag, but the rationale behind the choice was sorely lacking. Individuals like John Stuart Mill and Norbert Wiener spoke of an atheism based on a rejection of religious morality, and yet neither man held a concept of what morals might be. The men may have been quite good in their chosen fields of study, but they were lousy philosophers and logicians.

But what you have written is quite interesting to me. It has been far too long, a good twenty years or more, since I enjoyed the thought of pantheism/panentheism. Just to clarify for you my own view, I am not a member nor a supporter of any –ism. My views and interpretations are mine, I follow no man’s thoughts, I place no label upon myself, nor do I accept a label, and I base my hypotheses on what I can verify through first-hand experience and observation. If panentheism implies that all that exists must be comprised of all that which exists (correct me if I am mistaken on the interpretation), then my views are likely parallel to your own; not the same, but parallel.

Perhaps the primary reason for common theism and atheism being so similar is that both interpret their Reality as physical matter, which, as you pointed to earlier, renders both to be belief-based. Modern physics is slow recognizing the obvious, but physics now does accept the reality that the Universe and all that is in it is wave-based (energy potentials), not matter. There is no separation between spirit and ‘matter,’ all is composed of the same stuff, including any god or universal consciousness that exists. Technically, the best of physics would have to agree with the panentheism concept. In the physics definition of intelligence, of perception, memory, and weighed reaction, a universal consciousness must exist. Science-professing atheism is proven incorrect by its own science, as is common materialist theism.

The further that humanity gazes into the riddle of Creation, the faster that humanity discovers that only an infinitesimally small fraction of the wonder of Reality can be recognized to exist. Though it is known that countless combinations of reactions occur in Reality, the human mind can only perceive within a level of three of the combinations, and it is humbling to realize just how limited the human mind can be.

But there is another facet of Reality that is not yet recognized by the general public, which renders almost all common interpretations invalid. The panentheist concept may be more valid than what most panentheists suspect.

 

Whoa, heavy...

I think I would fall between the type II and III atheist. I don't believe in god because I see no reason to. I just sort of use this type of atheism as a default. It's close to agnosticism, but instead of saying "I have no evidence either way so I will stay neutral on the matter," I say "I have no evidence either way, so I resort to naturalistic and scientific ways of thinking." Not really religious thinking at all.

How did the universe come into existence? Was there even a start? I don't know. These questions can only be guessed at, which seems pointless to me. Similar with "Why are we here?" I dunno. Why would there be a reason?

I used to subscribe to a sort of pantheism, though I didn't have a word for it at the time, but I later came to believe that there was no reason to believe in a divine being at all. Nature is nature. Call it god and it's the same thing. Nature is mysterious and interesting enough for me.

 

Your position is certainly defensible, and has the advantage of being empirically grounded. I'm willing to take a chance on admittedly more speculative beliefs based on my intuitions, personal experiences and judgments. A point of clarification: Panentheism isn't exactly the same as pantheism. Panentheism posits that God, the animating force of the universe, includes nature but extends beyond it, so (S)he isn't exactly the same as the material universe. And (S)he may have consciousness and intelligence not unlike our own, which (S)he incorporates. I'm influenced by process theology, based on the views of Alfred North Whitehead, British mathematician and philosopher, which views God as a dynamic, evloving process rather than the Dude in the Sky or a being "up there". In the words of Saint Paul, "God is not far from each one of us. For 'in God we live and move and have our being.' " (St. Paul, quoting the Greek philosopher Epimenides). Whitehead's former colleague and co-author, atheist Bertrand Russell, remained skeptical, and thought his friend had gone off the deep end, for reasons that are understandable, valid and useful.

 

Not to be rude but your first post was actually quite stupid and based on a premise that there is no running definition of God to disbelieve when we live in a world where billions of people have died for this so called "undefined" bullshit master.

I disbelieve because of logic and evidence, there is no emotional attachment to my so called "beliefs". I do not sacrifice my time and money for my disbelief, I do not reject good food for my disbelief, I do not brainwash my children to hate belief for my disbelief, I do not vote for warmongers for my disbelief.

There is no ignorance in my disbelief, just disbelief.
Faith is ignorance, religion is organized ignorance.

 

Well stated.

I don't reject the existence of god, but I don't accept it either. Faith and religion are merely a means for humanity to reconcile fear of the unknown.

 

The intensity of the angry tone of your post seems to contradict your claim that there is "no emotional content" to your so-called beliefs. Having never brainwashed my children to hate (admittedly, I don't have any) or voted for warmongers, it seems we may have something in common, but to avoid the charge of ignorance you might consider a more open-minded, less dogmatic approach.

 

OMG, relaxxx!
If Okiefreak charges you with ignorance you're doomed!
Quick, repent!

 

No charge intended.

 

Pretty good classification system. personally i would put Type IV agnosticism, like someone else suggested, but then again i'm not sure agnosticism falls under a classification of atheism.

 

I think that sometimes people use the words atheist and agnostic to describe the same belief system, so that type IV might just fit, depending on how you choose to define your terms.

 

I am not emotional about my disbelief. I am emotional about watching organized ignorance contributing to the suffering and death of millions, blocking progress and destroying entire countries.

 

It is every moral persons duty to think god out of existence!
Fuck god! If you are real, god... strike me down now ,if you really exist, you impotent fuckin' pussy!:cuss:

 

What type of atheism is this?