Ok, I admit that the title is a bit of a "click bate" for both ends, but here it goes.
Browsing through some popular threads here, it seems like there's a general confusion as to what Atheism really is, and how that label tends to take on a "form" that shouldn't be ascribed to Atheism.
First of all, it should be noted that labels like Christian, Atheist, Republican, Democrat tend to be more pragmatic than carry some full scope of ontology of reality that these labels supposed to describe. These are very different from a more precise labels like "human", etc.
Thus, it's very easy to get lost in arguments against your own perception of the label as to what that label means to a person who takes it on as a description. In such, I'm not sure whether such labels are useful as shortcuts, or these create problematic perception.
We generally use them, because we are either "lazy" to repeat a list of what we believe, or because we find solace in some form of "righteous identity".
But, in short time I've spent on this forum, I've already had to clarify several times that "Atheism" is not a charge that God doesn't exist, at least it's not necessarily the case. In scope of our human experience, it tends to be a default position of not knowing and not believing.
From there we can progress into:
1) Staying in the default - not knowing and not believing that a God exists
2) Not knowing and believing that God exists
3) Claiming to know and by extension believing that God exists
4) Claiming to know and by extension not believing that God exists
So, there are a variety of positions. Some refuse to believe without evidence. Some believe without evidence.
But generally, #1 is labeled as "Agnosticism" and not Atheism, and here where confusion lies. Agnosticism is merely a claim of lack of knowledge through some form of experience or evidence. Both Atheists and theists have an overlap of not knowing.
IMO, the more general form of Atheism is anyone's default position of #1 - not knowing and not believing by extension. There are people who attempt to convince people both successfully and unsuccessfully to shift to a position of believe, but if they do shift to theism based on claims alone... that would make them Agnostic Theists.
The reason why I'm writing this is primarily because a lot of Christians associate Atheism as being closed to possibility of God, and view atheists on this board as trolls. That can be the case, but generally not IMO. There are cynics on either side of the spectrum and it's not inherent to either Christians or theists. I think people like myself are interested following up with whatever innovative evidence there may be for existence of supernatural and God, and such evidence and line of reasoning can come from individuals.
I hope that all of us would be interested to know if we indeed mistaking. I hope that would be true for either side of this issue. But, I don't think it's helpful to assume what a person believes or doesn't solely based on a one word label.
Browsing through some popular threads here, it seems like there's a general confusion as to what Atheism really is, and how that label tends to take on a "form" that shouldn't be ascribed to Atheism.
First of all, it should be noted that labels like Christian, Atheist, Republican, Democrat tend to be more pragmatic than carry some full scope of ontology of reality that these labels supposed to describe. These are very different from a more precise labels like "human", etc.
Thus, it's very easy to get lost in arguments against your own perception of the label as to what that label means to a person who takes it on as a description. In such, I'm not sure whether such labels are useful as shortcuts, or these create problematic perception.
We generally use them, because we are either "lazy" to repeat a list of what we believe, or because we find solace in some form of "righteous identity".
But, in short time I've spent on this forum, I've already had to clarify several times that "Atheism" is not a charge that God doesn't exist, at least it's not necessarily the case. In scope of our human experience, it tends to be a default position of not knowing and not believing.
From there we can progress into:
1) Staying in the default - not knowing and not believing that a God exists
2) Not knowing and believing that God exists
3) Claiming to know and by extension believing that God exists
4) Claiming to know and by extension not believing that God exists
So, there are a variety of positions. Some refuse to believe without evidence. Some believe without evidence.
But generally, #1 is labeled as "Agnosticism" and not Atheism, and here where confusion lies. Agnosticism is merely a claim of lack of knowledge through some form of experience or evidence. Both Atheists and theists have an overlap of not knowing.
IMO, the more general form of Atheism is anyone's default position of #1 - not knowing and not believing by extension. There are people who attempt to convince people both successfully and unsuccessfully to shift to a position of believe, but if they do shift to theism based on claims alone... that would make them Agnostic Theists.
The reason why I'm writing this is primarily because a lot of Christians associate Atheism as being closed to possibility of God, and view atheists on this board as trolls. That can be the case, but generally not IMO. There are cynics on either side of the spectrum and it's not inherent to either Christians or theists. I think people like myself are interested following up with whatever innovative evidence there may be for existence of supernatural and God, and such evidence and line of reasoning can come from individuals.
I hope that all of us would be interested to know if we indeed mistaking. I hope that would be true for either side of this issue. But, I don't think it's helpful to assume what a person believes or doesn't solely based on a one word label.
Last edited:
