To make it easier for non-atheists to understand, I've attempted to create a flow-chart easier explaining atheism. So I'm wondering if there's any thoughts on this, any errors or other things that are wrong.

I dislike 50% of these terms, explicit atheism seems completely useless as a term to me. However, people insist on them.

Views: 1631

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Looks good to me.
It makes perfect sense to me...especially from an agnostic atheist point of view.
I'm bookmarking it :D
At the core it is correct, but the format feels a bit awkward.
I suppose I am a weak (or agnostic) atheist in the sense that I cannot disprove that there is a god, yet while I do not say "There are no gods", I still feel very strongly that such entities are very, very unlikely.
This is atheism de facto, not weak atheism or agnosticism.
There is a category that is absent, but one that has always been on my mind, and is in fact the route by which I arrived here -

Atheist on Principle

Effectively it is a deist, theist or agnostic expressing disgust that any kind of god that would want to have anything to do with any kind of organised religion that has ever existed and is therefore not a god you want to have anything to do with. It is being on strike. Being a conscientious objector. It is rejection of god for ethical reasons.

As far as the process of de-conversion goes, this is a useful intermediary step and much more likely to yield results than the brute force deconversion efforts of atheisms more luminous voices.

Just my $0.02
Felch wrote: "any kind of god that would want to have anything to do with any kind of organised religion that has ever existed and is therefore not a god you want to have anything to do with"

Reminds me of Groucho Marx: "I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members. "

Maybe God is Groucho Marx!

Now there's a god I could believe in. ;-)
Well ... since everyone else agrees I'm gonna have to be leery and not :)

I'm afraid I don't accept all these strong/weak/explicit/non-explicit things ... the meaning of "atheist" depends on the definition of "theist" which is to say that "theism" (based on the Greek) means to be "with God" so "atheism" (with it's grammatic reversal "a" prefix) means "not with god". As far as I'm concerned, this means that you are an atheist if you don't accept current claims to the existence of deity so that includes agnostics. To my mind people with an active disbelief in deity do so without evidence so risk making themselves look as silly as the theists.

I tend to view the various styles of atheism as value added and indeed view theism in much the same way though I suppose that's more value detracted.

I wouldn't say de facto atheism is an active or positive disbelief, there's for cases such as this people have invented some of the terms I've listed.

If i understand your point correctly, you are asserting that atheism would have to require some sort of faith as the person can't judge by empirical evidence that there is absence of a deity, it would require some sort of faith to draw that conclusion. However, this is not de facto atheism - rather positive/strong atheism, which is the reason people have invented these sub-terms. Originally, and primarily; atheism is only absence of faith.

Agnosticism is not a third way or middle-ground between theism and atheism, but an agnostic can still be partly theist or atheist. Agnosticism is about knowledge, it can be used with absence or presence of belief.




Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service