I would love for more experienced people than myself to distinguish between the above mentioned non theistic beliefs..I have recently come out as an Atheist and confused about which one describes me best.....I am leaning toward Humanism but would like some input from others...I do not believe in god but I also feel that everyone is entitled to their own beliefs without prejudice.....and wish that we all could just get along....
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Theism - The belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends, yet is immanent in the world.-- First known use of the THEISM: 1678 --
Atheism - A disbelief in the existence of a diety (origin from a- + theos god) -- first used in 1546 --
Anti-theism - a conscious and deliberate opposition to theism
Gnostic - of or relating to knowledge, especially esoteric mystical knowledge (origin greek gnostos to know) -- First used in late 16th century --
Agnostic - person who does not believe or is unsure of something or unwilling to commit to an opinion of something. (origin greek agnostos unknown, unknowable) -- First known use 1869 --
Religion - an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods (origin Latin religio supernatural constraint) --First known use 13th century--
Faith - alliegiance to a duty or a person; belief and trust in and loyalty to God; firm belief in something for which there is no proof (origin Latin fidere to trust) -- First known use 13th century--
I included the definition of faith and religion because many theists will try to tell you that atheism is a religion or that it requires faith. This is not at all true.
So you can be be an atheist agnostic, an atheist theist, a Gnostic atheist, or a Gnostic theist. You have to either be a theist or an atheist. There is no gray area there. Either you believe in a god or you don't believe in any god. That being said, some people who are agnostic atheists just call themselves agnostics to emphasize the fact that they really feel like there is no evidence either way. Personally, while I believe there is no "proof" either way, I feel like ther is more evidence for many theories that have noo need for a God, so I will proudly call myself an atheist and leave it at that.
Here is Richard Dawkins' "levels" theism/agnosticism/atheism.
Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: “I do not believe, I know.”
De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. “I don’t know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.”
Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. “I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.”
Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. “God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.”
Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. “I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.”
De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. “I don’t know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.”
Strong atheist. “I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one.”
Hopefully this gives you at least some starting point to finding out how you can best identify yourself to others, but remember, labels aren't that important. It is best to just know what you believe and be able to convey that to them coherently. Labels tend to bring along baggage and preconcieved notions. Just be prepared to deal with those when you talk to theists.
Well, this is a tough biscuit.
First, refer to yourself any way you like. When describing yourself, you do so on your terms. Use whatever you like or are comfortable with to describe yourself. It's your call. No matter what word(s) you use, someone else will have other words. A volf farlirt zayne hor, ober nit zayn natur.
Second, there will always be prejudice and not all will ever get along. Would it be nice? Hell yes! Will it happen? Naw.
Prejudice is not, in itself an avoidable thing. And it's not necessarily evil. Bigotry is. We are all prejudice. We are not all bigots. The difference is that bigots think a person should be treated differently based on their prejudices.
It's human nature to gravitate to those with whom we best identify. That's a prejudice. It's okay. It's ineluctable.
Although I fundamentally agree that all are entitled (although I dislike the word) to our own opinions, I will always have a big, phat problem with religion. Hitch got it right, it ruins everything.
Well, this is a tough biscuit.
First, refer to yourself any way you like. When describing yourself, you do so on your terms. Use whatever you like or are comfortable with to describe yourself. It's your call. No matter what word(s) you use, someone else will have other words. A volf farlirt zayne hor, ober nit zayn natur.
Second, there will always be prejudice and not all will ever get along. Would it be nice? Hell yes! Will it happen? Naw.
Prejudice is not, in itself an avoidable thing. And it's not necessarily evil. Bigotry is. We are all prejudice. We are not all bigots. The difference is that bigots think a person should be treated differently based on their prejudices.
It's human nature to gravitate to those with whom we best identify. That's a prejudice. It's okay. It's ineluctable.
Although I fundamentally agree that all are entitled (although I dislike the word) to our own opinions, I will always have a big, phat problem with religion. Hitch got it right, it ruins everything.
Apologies, didn't mean to post this twice.
Agreed.. And yea 'freethinker' just always keep it in that context of 'what best describes you' and not what defines you. Even still, your beliefs are one thing, YOU are another. So there is no group that best describes you. There are groups that best describe your beliefs.
.. One day, sooner rather than later I hope, people will come to realize that all these endless isms literally can only ever create more division. Been part of a group with a closed set of ideas is never actually going to solve any of the problems between us, instead only solidify the divisions (making the problem worse), implying that you think one way, I think another, and that is simply the way it is. The search for a middle ground is canceled. No point trying to settle our differences, how can we? I'm a this'ist' and your a that'ist.' In a few words, it's all bullshit. Sure as a use of organizing people with differing beliefs, they may need to be separated in to some labeled category, but this is not 'wat they are,' this organizing should have always been with the understanding that we are all in fact the same family, in the same group, and we CAN work our differences out, and should be trying. Instead we split the world into groups with full intention of keeping people in them groups, duuuuuh.
It seems our entire way of life is built up on the foundation that; there isn't enough resources to go round so we must live within a system of control to decide who does and who doesn't get a share, and we're too dumb to get along so must be divided into groups and stay there. Both these notions are untrue. And more people are waking up to these facts every day. Never easy at first but we get there.
.. When people ask me in this sense 'what I am'? I simply say "I'm human.. like you" .... It's impossible to actually belong to a political category because none of these 'isms' are open to the idea of change, which of course is a fundamental law of life, therefore ALL category's are in fact, void, illogical and dangerous.
And yea, about the whole 'respecting peoples beliefs' thing. The older I get the less I seem to be able to tolerate the bullshit. If we continue to allow, or ignore, mass human suffering and degradation on this planet out of some do-gooder respect of deluded belief, then aren't we as much to blame for all the pain caused by that belief? .. I'm not saying we go round bashing theists or anything, but I think it's important to remind people of 'faith' of the malevolent destruction such beliefs have directly caused.. Like it's been said (by Einstein I think) - the worst evils in this world will not happen because of the ones doing it, but because of the ones who see it and do nothing. (or something to that effect)
I respect your right to believe what you want. But I will tell you if I think what you believe is evil, dangerous and is playing a huge part in the monumental fucking up of this world.
I'm totally lost on why we need such exact definitions to define how we *don't* believe in something. especially since that thing doesn't exist, and is largely undefined anyway.
I don't believe in god. Whatever everyone wants to call that these days is fine with me.
What exactly is the working definition of Humanism right now?
Theres one slight mistake atheism was first used 6th century bce. It literally meant one without the state religion and was a crime punishable by death. Incidentally its the crime the romans charged the christians with.
Without a state of religion... yeah, that pretty much sums it up. how they are charging christians with it these days is a mystery to me. Perhaps it's a simple translation error on their part, and christians clearly have a religion.
Sorry without the states religion. Ie the rulers of islamic countries made islam their state religion so anyone in an islamic country that was not muslim would be an atheist under the original definition of the word.
The romans had the roman gods as their state religion so anyone that worshiped another god was an atheist.