4 ms·

It's funny. I knew someone was going to have _exactly_ that objection, which is why I purposely why I wrote, "BELIEF or religion" in order to try and be inclusi

It's funny. I knew someone was going to have _exactly_ that objection, which is why I purposely why I wrote, "BELIEF or religion" in order to try and be inclusive and not get sidetracked from the main point. Take a large enough group of people in any category, and you're going to find the artists, the lawyers, the zealots, the leaders, the followers, the selfish, the altruistic, the devout, the sticklers, the lackadaisical and everything else. Maybe you just proved my point. :-)

seszett 12y ago
Well, my objection was not on the "belief" part, it was on the "letter of the law" part. Atheism is just not something that has laws that can be interpreted or not. You can't be a "devout atheist" or a "non-practicing atheist", or practice parts of atheism but not others, it makes absolutely no sense. Atheism is by definition a binary property. If you wanted to list different categories including non-religious ones, talking about national laws or vegetarianism would have been pertinent in a way that atheism was not.
- anotherevan 12y ago
  Respectfully, I disagree that you cannot be a devout atheist, but I think we are digressing. Certainly national or government laws are applicable to my point of people who will follow the letter of the law, but find every little loophole they can if it benefits them, even if it harms others, and those that follow the spirit or principle in-which the law was enacted, sans loopholes.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- ars 12y ago
  > You can't be a "devout atheist" or a "non-practicing atheist", or practice parts of atheism but not others, it makes absolutely no sense. Sure you can. You can believe God exists, but decide, like an atheist, not to follow any rules because you don't think God cares. You can believe God exists and cares, but did not actually make any rules. You can Believe God is actually the laws of nature and is omni-everything, but not intelligent. You can believe God made the big bang but otherwise left the world alone (so there are no laws to follow). Even "devout" atheists still have to believe in something that made the big bang. Some just ignore the topic, others think "we'll figure it out", others feel "whatever made it is outside the universe and thus of no concern to me", other feel "I only care about proven things, unproven things I ignore". > Atheism is by definition a binary property. As you can see from my list there are a tremendous number of shades of gray here. Like any religion there are multiple branches of atheism.
  - seszett 12y ago
    I don't want to get dragged in an argument about what atheism is, but the commonly accepted definition is that it is nothing more or less than the belief that no god exists. The big bang has exactly nothing to do with atheism (why bring it up at all ? it's just a science topic) and "believing that a god exists but deciding, like an atheist, not to follow any rules" is not being an atheist. It is being a believer in some god (so, a theist) as well as an anarchist. ALL your examples were people that are very clearly not atheists, since all of these examples involved believing in one god. They are only various examples of monotheist practices. There can not be branches of atheism - and I know I'm exposing myself to a misguided answer making reference to the no true Scotsman fallacy, but it would be wrong. The very etymology of "atheism" leaves no place to branches: if you believe that a god exists, good, even if you think there is only one this still leaves many ways to believe in it... however, if you believe that no god exists, which is what atheism is, there is only one way for something not to exist at all. There is a fundamental difference between believing something exists and believing something does not exist. Believing that it does not exist is a very simple belief, with no possible nuances while believing in the existence of something does leave place to interpretation.
    - ars 12y ago
      So clearly you belong to the branch that just ignores the topic of where existence comes from. I define God very simply: That which created existence. You can not just disbelieve in existence, so you have to clarify what kind of atheist you are. You are probably using a definition of God as: An intelligence that created existence.
      - seszett 12y ago
        You are just trying to bend definitions to make them agree with what you're saying. The common definition for "god", from http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/god#Noun http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/god#Noun is "A supernatural, typically immortal being with superior powers". The "supernatural", "being" and "superior powers" parts are very clear. If you can accept that a supernatural being with superior powers created existence, then you cannot be atheist. If you believe that what you call "God", with a typically monotheist stance, is whatever created "existence" whatever that means, and whether or not it was a natural process or a supernatural being, then your personal definition of "God" is not the common one, and you should have given it earlier. Also, I do not ignore the topic of where existence comes from (although that formulation sounds quite weird to me) but I leave it to science, and I am not an atheist either. I do have difficulty following the reasoning of occidental monotheists though, who seem to try very hard to spin their definition of a single "God" in order to claim that atheists are just believers like any other theist.
- tovmeod 12y ago
  practicing and non-practicing are concepts specific to christian cultures and not a general concept applied to all beliefs

seszett 12y ago

Well, my objection was not on the "belief" part, it was on the "letter of the law" part. Atheism is just not something that has laws that can be interpreted or not. You can't be a "devout atheist" or a "non-practicing atheist", or practice parts of atheism but not others, it makes absolutely no sense. Atheism is by definition a binary property. If you wanted to list different categories including non-religious ones, talking about national laws or vegetarianism would have been pertinent in a way that atheism was not.

anotherevan 12y ago
Respectfully, I disagree that you cannot be a devout atheist, but I think we are digressing. Certainly national or government laws are applicable to my point of people who will follow the letter of the law, but find every little loophole they can if it benefits them, even if it harms others, and those that follow the spirit or principle in-which the law was enacted, sans loopholes.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
ars 12y ago
> You can't be a "devout atheist" or a "non-practicing atheist", or practice parts of atheism but not others, it makes absolutely no sense. Sure you can. You can believe God exists, but decide, like an atheist, not to follow any rules because you don't think God cares. You can believe God exists and cares, but did not actually make any rules. You can Believe God is actually the laws of nature and is omni-everything, but not intelligent. You can believe God made the big bang but otherwise left the world alone (so there are no laws to follow). Even "devout" atheists still have to believe in something that made the big bang. Some just ignore the topic, others think "we'll figure it out", others feel "whatever made it is outside the universe and thus of no concern to me", other feel "I only care about proven things, unproven things I ignore". > Atheism is by definition a binary property. As you can see from my list there are a tremendous number of shades of gray here. Like any religion there are multiple branches of atheism.
- seszett 12y ago
  I don't want to get dragged in an argument about what atheism is, but the commonly accepted definition is that it is nothing more or less than the belief that no god exists. The big bang has exactly nothing to do with atheism (why bring it up at all ? it's just a science topic) and "believing that a god exists but deciding, like an atheist, not to follow any rules" is not being an atheist. It is being a believer in some god (so, a theist) as well as an anarchist. ALL your examples were people that are very clearly not atheists, since all of these examples involved believing in one god. They are only various examples of monotheist practices. There can not be branches of atheism - and I know I'm exposing myself to a misguided answer making reference to the no true Scotsman fallacy, but it would be wrong. The very etymology of "atheism" leaves no place to branches: if you believe that a god exists, good, even if you think there is only one this still leaves many ways to believe in it... however, if you believe that no god exists, which is what atheism is, there is only one way for something not to exist at all. There is a fundamental difference between believing something exists and believing something does not exist. Believing that it does not exist is a very simple belief, with no possible nuances while believing in the existence of something does leave place to interpretation.
  - ars 12y ago
    So clearly you belong to the branch that just ignores the topic of where existence comes from. I define God very simply: That which created existence. You can not just disbelieve in existence, so you have to clarify what kind of atheist you are. You are probably using a definition of God as: An intelligence that created existence.
    - seszett 12y ago
      You are just trying to bend definitions to make them agree with what you're saying. The common definition for "god", from http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/god#Noun http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/god#Noun is "A supernatural, typically immortal being with superior powers". The "supernatural", "being" and "superior powers" parts are very clear. If you can accept that a supernatural being with superior powers created existence, then you cannot be atheist. If you believe that what you call "God", with a typically monotheist stance, is whatever created "existence" whatever that means, and whether or not it was a natural process or a supernatural being, then your personal definition of "God" is not the common one, and you should have given it earlier. Also, I do not ignore the topic of where existence comes from (although that formulation sounds quite weird to me) but I leave it to science, and I am not an atheist either. I do have difficulty following the reasoning of occidental monotheists though, who seem to try very hard to spin their definition of a single "God" in order to claim that atheists are just believers like any other theist.
tovmeod 12y ago
practicing and non-practicing are concepts specific to christian cultures and not a general concept applied to all beliefs