'Atheist' v/s 'Non-believer'?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sarah Madara

Freeway stomper extraordinaire
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 25, 2010
Messages
1,062
Reaction score
154
Location
Procrastination Nation
Umm... I've met many such Christians who believe themselves to own the only correct definition of 'Christian.' Not sure why you've guessed otherwise.
Sorry, that didn't come out right. Sarcasm that didn't translate. My point was really just that credentials and expertise will never automatically get respect from people who disagree with you about a philosophical topic. Never mind. It was a stupid way to say it.

I see no distinction between belief and knowledge except that a knower usually claims greater psychological certainty than a believer -- though not always.
I do see a distinction in myself, but I also think that distinction simply doesn't exist for many people, and so it boils down to how you use language to describe your own feelings - just as with the other terms we've been discussing.

For me, personally, I would describe belief as something I can cultivate within myself, even when common sense might say otherwise. More of a wishful thinking, then, maybe? For instance, if I were diagnosed with a late stage cancer, I might believe I was going to beat it while knowing the odds were poor.

Possibly I use a weaker meaning of belief because I am a non-believer.

And I think that the word 'prove' has done more to confuse humanity than even the word 'god' and should be banned from all languages. Maybe mathematicians would be allowed to use it but only if properly licensed.
Strongly worded, but I get where you're coming from ;)

If only everyone were a licensed mathematician...
 

pegasus

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 16, 2011
Messages
132
Reaction score
15
Location
South
No, I really don't understand how someone can both not believe in god and not know whether there's a god at the same time. If I don't believe in something, I'm not still wondering whether it exists. If I'm wondering if something exists, I can't say definitively that I don't believe in it.

OK. Me, I’m way vaguer than that.:) We’re dealing with our internal monologue and internal state here. I can think this thought:

Well, I’m pretty sure that I’ve never encountered a concept of God which seems integrated to me, except sometimes if I think of God as ‘the mystery of life’ or some vague notion like that. Hmm... I wonder if that means that I don’t believe in God, or does it mean that I just don’t know? Hey, beats me. I’m just tooling around here in my mind.

So am I an atheist or an agnostic when I think that thought? Would a slight rewording of my monologue change ‘who I am.’ I don’t think so.

Here’s a question which I like to ask: Is it possible for me to be both a conservative and a liberal at the same moment?

In my opinion, it is of course possible. I am both a conservative and a liberal.

Anyway, all this stuff makes me believe that labels shouldn’t be taken too seriously. That’s pretty much what I think I’m trying to express.

I also think communication hinges on commonly accepted meanings of words, so I do like definitions. Without some sort of accepted meaning, there's not much point in discussing anything.

Sure, we have to try. My objection has to do with someone asserting that ‘this word means this.’

Not at all. But stating that no one knows what happens after death or at the point of death does not necessarily have anything to do with belief or disbelief in a god. I wonder if we're talking about the same thing. Maybe I misread what your quote about not knowing was actually referring to? If so, my bad.

No big deal either way. It’s just our fumbling effort to transfer meaning between our heads. Amazing that we ever come close to success.

I don't know what happens after death. I have suspicions, of course, in a general sort of way, but there is no concrete evidence since no one has been brought back from the dead with evidence of what happens. (People who are revived have all sorts of stories, but that's another matter entirely, in my opinion.)

Careful now. You’re dangerously close to instigating a whole Pegasus dissertation on the nature of ‘knowing’ :)

Short version: I don’t think knowing is possible for humans – not in the way most people conceive of knowing.

The thread really came about based on the slightly different shades of meaning two words might have. If the different meanings of words didn't matter, verbal communication would devolve pretty quickly, wouldn't it?

They matter. They just shouldn’t be believed in, in my opinion.

Words are my bread and butter, and their meanings fascinate, perplex and feed me, literally and figuratively. As a writer, I never really get the 'they're just words' thinking, especially among other writers.

What I mean by it is that words aren’t controlled by the (holy) dictionaries. Their meanings are controlled by agreement between the speaker and the listener.

So a too-certain belief in dictionary meanings can lead to some confusion, in my view of things. I think it’s more important to listen carefully to the speaker and try to glean his meaning than to argue with him that he’s using his words incorrectly.
 

veinglory

volitare nequeo
Self-Ban
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
28,750
Reaction score
2,933
Location
right here
Website
www.veinglory.com
It is not a sentiment of "just words". More like a feeling that words are bizarre, shape-shifting wild animals that you never entirely pin down. And that's how it should be.
 

pegasus

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 16, 2011
Messages
132
Reaction score
15
Location
South
It is not a sentiment of "just words". More like a feeling that words are bizarre, shape-shifting wild animals that you never entirely pin down. And that's how it should be.

Don't try to tame my animal!

(Yeah, that's T-shirt material right there.)
 

shelleyo

Just another face in a red jumpsuit
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 9, 2010
Messages
2,126
Reaction score
342
There can be a hundred shades of red, which make it a changing, shifting thing, I suppose. And there are shades of red on the color wheel that are bleeding into other colors that might be questionable as far as pinning down exactly what they are. Is it reddish-yellow, yellow-red or dark orange or--. But when someone says red, no one should picture pink.

That would be chaos. Murder and pillaging. Anarchy and re-runs of Full House 24 hours a day. Cannibalism would run rampant. Seriously. Well, okay, not. But still, red is not pink no matter who decides it really is. These words do have meaning. Atheism and agnosticism aren't the same thing any more than red and pink are the same. Do they possess some similar qualities and shades? Of course they do.

The OP:

I am what some people prefer to call an Atheist. Myself, I prefer 'non-believer', mainly because I feel that the word 'atheist' has such anti-Christian connotations.

I respect all religions, and all believers, though I can not even begin to fathom the concept of having a religion or having a faith.

I agree with some others here that the word doesn't have anti-Christian connotations. I'm anti-religion, so I wouldn't care much if it did; I don't think it does. I don't respect religion, but I do respect each person's right to decide what to believe. I respect the people and the fact that they have some belief, but I wouldn't go so far to say I respect what they believe in.

Shelley
 
Last edited:

pegasus

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 16, 2011
Messages
132
Reaction score
15
Location
South
Everything you say sounds reasonable, shelleyo, and I think we’ve about talked it to death, but I wanted to mention one thing which I find interesting.

At the corner of my porch is a camellia which is over a hundred years old. Visitors are always commenting on it. Some say, “Goodness, what a large camellia bush.” Others say, “Oh, I love your tree.”

I’ve never had anyone argue over whether it’s a tree or whether a bush, but every time I hear the atheist vs. agnostic argument, I think of my camellia. Is it a bush or is it a tree? Beats me. I leave it up to the visitor to call it whatever makes him happy.

Anyway, to my mind, the difference between an atheist and an agnostic is a thousand times more vague than that between a tree and a bush. There isn’t even a physical substance to judge... just thoughts and words.

But I understand and accept that you may see it differently.
 

shelleyo

Just another face in a red jumpsuit
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 9, 2010
Messages
2,126
Reaction score
342
But I understand and accept that you may see it differently.

Same here. I do think we probably agree on far more than we disagree. It's been an interesting discussion, at any rate.

Shelley
 

Albedo of Zero

That didn't hurt
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
4,072
Reaction score
671
Location
here
To me, it's almost a goo goo g'joob belief. I am HE, as you are HE, as we are HE, and we are altogether [sic].

I don't believe in the bible's parables as they have been taught (anti-biblio?)—by power fraud.

Atheist, I guess... or antisophist

Things in the bible make a lot more sense when I put my name or my mind in place of god, lord, jesus, messiah, kingdom(except when it clearly means another's kingdom).

And the weird stuff I've rationale-ed out except for that damn ark.

One theme that reigns throughout the bible is... to give someone authority over you(the lord) is a sin... original at that..and once given, hard to take back.
 

Sheila Muirenn

Rebuilding My Brain
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
1,906
Reaction score
495
Location
Riding my bicycle
I am what some people prefer to call an Atheist. Myself, I prefer 'non-believer', mainly because I feel that the word 'atheist' has such anti-Christian connotations.


I am just curious to know if other non-believers care what they are called, and what word they prefer to use when presented with the question what they believe.

Non-believer, to me, is still linked to the whole idea of faith. It acknowledges that system as important to a sense of self. Even the absence of, or disbelief in, links the person to religion.

I just say that I prefer science. Then they try the whole atheist vs agnostic spiel. And I have to explain that even those terms are religious-based, and I'm not in that category. Those categories have nothing to do with me, I prefer science....

Sigh. Mostly, I try to ignore them. Can't reason with bs.
 
Last edited:

Ken

Banned
Kind Benefactor
Joined
Dec 28, 2007
Messages
11,478
Reaction score
6,198
Location
AW. A very nice place!
I am what some people prefer to call an Atheist. Myself, I prefer 'non-believer', mainly because I feel that the word 'atheist' has such anti-Christian connotations.

I respect all religions, and all believers, though I can not even begin to fathom the concept of having a religion or having a faith.

I am just curious to know if other non-believers care what they are called, and what word they prefer to use when presented with the question what they believe.

The term atheist doesn't really suit me either. But it's a close enough fit. So I am okay with it. Terms like, "godless heathen" are another matter ;-)
 

oceansoul

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 18, 2014
Messages
743
Reaction score
91
Age
34
Location
Seattle, WA
I have the opposite view to you OP. I absolutely hate being called a 'non-believer.' I think the reason for this is that I mostly hear this term as a label given by Christian people to non-Christians. It comes across as representative a very 'us' and 'them' mentality.

I was raised protestant and became an atheist at 12. The people who refer to me as a 'non-believer' also tend to say things such as, 'she lost her faith.' I didn't lose anything. I find that phrase painfully patronising. I gained historical and scientific knowledge, perspective, a sense of individual morality and a deep appreciation for charitable organisations that work to make this life as good as possible for all people.
 

Melisande

Banned
Flounced
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
1,027
Reaction score
311
Location
Finally in Paradise
The thing is that I was raised in a home without religion. Calling myself a "non-believer" felt closer to myself than "atheist", which I stated in the opening of this thread felt had a lot of "anti-" attached to it.

I've never had any kind of faith, even though I've looked into a lot of different faith-based philosophies. I have tried to find out what 'faith" means, and never come close. Therefore, I still prefer the term "non-believer", even though I have realized, partly through this thread, that the term "atheist" is the more accepted one, and maybe even the clearer one.

So nowadays I do not shy away. I pronounce myself an atheist, even though the term to me is uncomfortable, considering how some (almost) militant atheist groups behave - at least here in the US.

The distinction to me - however - has always been that a "non-believer" is in fact void of any belief and that an "atheist" is opposed some kind of belief. Does that make sense?

I is so hard to express a "nothing" because it inevitably gets perceived as an "opposed" something or other...
 

Dennis E. Taylor

Get it off! It burns!
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 1, 2014
Messages
2,602
Reaction score
365
Location
Beautiful downtown Mordor
The distinction to me - however - has always been that a "non-believer" is in fact void of any belief and that an "atheist" is opposed some kind of belief. Does that make sense?

The word "atheist" covers everyone from the person who quietly withholds belief pending some evidence right through to the militant atheists like Dawkins; just as "Christian" covers everything from the person who quietly believes in the Holy Trinity right through to the Westboro Baptists. Trying to paint an entire group with an extremist brush is a fairly common demonization tactic, and one that should be resisted.
 

veinglory

volitare nequeo
Self-Ban
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
28,750
Reaction score
2,933
Location
right here
Website
www.veinglory.com
In American atheist is such a strong word that people talking about "coming out as an atheist, and there has never been an openly atheist senator or representative. So if using a different word helps a person be more open about their beliefs and open the discussion with friends and family, I am all for it.
 

oceansoul

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 18, 2014
Messages
743
Reaction score
91
Age
34
Location
Seattle, WA
In American atheist is such a strong word that people talking about "coming out as an atheist, and there has never been an openly atheist senator or representative. So if using a different word helps a person be more open about their beliefs and open the discussion with friends and family, I am all for it.

On the flip side, though, making the word taboo does not help the American public to become more accepting. If more people who were already thought to be "good people" came out as atheists, it would probably be good for the country as a whole. Rather than trying to pander to the bigots.

In any case, atheism is the largest growing 'religion/category of thought' in Western countries. The US will catch up to Western Europe eventually.
 

veinglory

volitare nequeo
Self-Ban
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
28,750
Reaction score
2,933
Location
right here
Website
www.veinglory.com
People come out through other words, to being an atheist. So I see it as a win/win. It makes the process easier but achieves the same goal.

I see no evidence atheism is growing as a demographic. Some of those powerful people probably are atheist right now, there is just no good reason for them to admit it. That has been true for all of US history and looks likely to remain so for a long time to come.
 
Last edited:

oceansoul

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 18, 2014
Messages
743
Reaction score
91
Age
34
Location
Seattle, WA
I see no evidence atheism is growing as a demographic. Some of those powerful people probably are atheist right now, there is just no good reason for them to admit it. That has been true for all of US history and looks likely to remain so for a long time to come.

Here is the last government census for England and Wales:
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/censu...rities-in-england-and-wales/rpt-religion.html

Here is an American article that discusses it in the US:
http://www.pewforum.org/2012/10/09/nones-on-the-rise/

And a British source that talks about America:
http://theweek.com/article/index/226625/the-rise-of-atheism-in-america

I have dual citizenship. American and UK. While I think the UK is markedly more secular, I definitely think that there is a cultural shift going on in the US as well. Only time will tell. But probably a debate for another thread!
 

benbradley

It's a doggy dog world
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
20,322
Reaction score
3,513
Location
Transcending Canines
I think it's well-known that the "religiously unaffiliated," as the graph in the second link shows, is on the rise in the USA. Even so:

1. The Religiously Unaffiliated includes those who no longer go to church, but may still have a belief in God or some more-powerful-than-human spiritual entity - the current buzzphrase is "Spiritual But Not Religious," though this reduces the meaning of religious to "one who goes to church" rather than the older meaning of one who believes in God.

2. It's still less than the 25 percent shown for "no religion" in the pie chart in the first link on Religion in England and Wales (and the "no religion" statement still has the problem of whether it's all nonbelievers or if it includes believers who are unaffiliated with an organized religion). I suspect the SBNR phenomenon is mostly American, and so this "no religion" statement would more likely be taken outside America as meaning no belief. The gap of the percentage of atheists across the Pond is surely wider than a first reading of these links indicate.

3. The religious in America are MUCH more vocal (about promoting their beliefs) than the religious in Great Britain and Europe, and the American religious people exert much more political influence based on their religious beliefs than do the religious elsewhere (this in spite of strong laws [IRS rules)]against churches not endorsing candidates from the pulpit stemming directly from the First Amendment).

Religious belief remains overwhelmingly influential to the extent that virtually ALL elected elected officials in the USA identify as religious.

Here's an interesting Wikipedia page of current and former elected officials (worldwide) who have stated they are atheist:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_politics_and_law

I only recognize two names on the list.

The Barney Frank entry references this article, that says he only claimed to be atheist AFTER leaving office:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...atheist-_n_3732754.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices

The entry for Jesse Ventura points to several references, but they all appear to be WELL after he left office as Governor:
http://youtu.be/SqFgRRmDHOs?t=1m6s
 
Last edited:

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
1. The Religiously Unaffiliated includes those who no longer go to church, but may still have a belief in God or some more-powerful-than-human spiritual entity - the current buzzphrase is "Spiritual But Not Religious," though this reduces the meaning of religious to "one who goes to church" rather than the older meaning of one who believes in God.

"One who goes to church" doesn't work if your religion doesn't have churches.
 

Seven-Deuce

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 14, 2015
Messages
124
Reaction score
10
Location
Phoenix
The existence of God does not make sense to me, but I figure that's probably the whole point. God works miracles, and miracles exist in defiance of logic and reality, sort of a Catch-22. If there is a God, you can't explain it; if there isn't a God, then everything has an explanation.

In the meantime, I will do what makes sense with the information I have without muddling my perspective with invisible men. Attach whatever label you want to that.
 

Once!

Still confused by shoelaces
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,965
Reaction score
433
Location
Godalming, England
Website
www.will-once.com
Hmm. A zombie thread, twice resurrected. There's a joke in there somewhere.

The question of atheism vs non-believer is a bit of a pointless argument for me. I am what I am, I believe what I believe and I deal in shades of grey and not absolutes.

I haven't yet found a simple description that describes my belief - although I haven't looked too hard. I'm far more interested in meaning and understanding than over-simplified labels.
 

stephenf

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 29, 2008
Messages
1,199
Reaction score
335




I’ve never had anyone argue over whether it’s a tree or whether a bush, but every time I hear the atheist vs. agnostic argument, I think of my camellia. Is it a bush or is it a tree? Beats me. I leave it up to the visitor to call it whatever makes him happy.]


A tree has a trunk , bushes don't.
The things most people say, only confirms their limited knowledge
 

Underdawg47

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 18, 2015
Messages
415
Reaction score
42
Location
Federal Way Washington
What made you guys atheists/nonbelievers? (Just curious to know.)

For me it happened at a time when I was told that animals don't have souls like people do, that god views homosexuality as an abomination and realizing that the Bible was written by man. I was a teenager at the time and God in the Old Testament seemed anything but good, in fact he seemed rather cruel. How could I as a gay man respect or even worship a god who sees homosexuality as an abomination? It was like a cruel cosmic joke that blessed the vast majority of straight people not for anything they did to deserve such a blessing other than they were born heterosexual, and yet I and others like me were cursed for being different.

At first I decided that maybe there was a god for gay people and animals, a god that saw the beauty in this world and not some imaginary next one. I still feel that this is a perfect world even with death and suffering.

Though today I side with atheists and agnostics, I deeply feel that there is something beyond the knowable. For a while I felt as if we were just biological machines that simply turned off at the time of death and there was no soul, but now after a series of recent dreams, I believe in reincarnation and groups of souls that incarnate together. If there is a god, we are all just divisions.

I used to wonder, where is the soul in those who suffer brain damage as in alzheimer's disease, or mental retardation, has it left the body? As a biology student observing microbes under a microscope I noticed that living things made choices, no matter how small and were able to alter the course of motion using energy unlike, inorganic, non-living things. Perhaps this was the basis for the soul, the om chant, the point of meditation where you attempt to rid your mind of thought and be in the moment. Perhaps the soul is that silent observer that makes a choice.

When I think of time, it feels like a wave, the seconds ticking away, each moment different from the next. Moving from the past into a future place in space riding the crest of some wave. Einstein claims that time is relative to the observer and that time slows down for those who move faster though space. It would imply that the past, present and future exists somewhere, hidden from view.

That made me wonder how could my mass both exist in the past and in the present moment. Doesn't one's mass travel through space. I read that mass acts like both a particle and a wave, and on the surface that seems to be a bit of a paradox. Light itself seems like a paradox, because a wave implies being propagated through some sort of medium, but space appears to be mostly devoid of mass.

Then Einstein claims that our universe is made of some fabric called space-time and that massive objects curve space-time towards the center of mass. Ancient thinkers used to believe in the aether, that elementary particle that fills all of space and that which light moves through. What if it actually exists and that matter moves through it as well. Perhaps matter is actually a standing wave and moves as a wave thought the aether much like a wave moves through the ocean. If a person were nothing but a wave, it would be impossible to study the nature of the aether because they do not travel along with us through space. We come into existence only in the now moment as we pass through a different area of the aether, our past lies somewhere off in space behind us as our solar system and galaxy zips along on its cosmic journey and our future selves lies in the direction we are heading.

That brings me back to the concept of block time, where all of time exists somewhere even all of the possible future events. What do we have that is even similar to this concept? Video games. In many ways a past, present and future are programed and as you play the game you interact with other players and every game is different each time you play it by the combined choices that each character makes. Is there good or evil in video games? Is there a god or just those who created the game? Can the future be known? Can those who design the game know which choices you will make each time you play the game. He can program all the possible outcomes, but can the creators predict which one's you will choose.

I like to think that this is closer to the true reality of our universe. There exists this universe where the past, present and multiple possible futures all exist in this thing called space-time and that we are characters in a game played by souls in which there is no true good or evil only the perceptions of the characters we play. And god if it exists perhaps created the game with a beginning middle and infinite endings.

What if this universe along with the creators of this game are but the creations of some bigger game that goes on and on.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.