So you call yourself an atheist...

[maybebaby888888888]

Types of Atheists:

philosphical atheist-One who rejects the assumption that there is a God or Supreme Being.

materialist-A philosophical atheist who believes that nothing spiritual exists. (Basically, everything is an expression of matter more or less.)

atheist-in-practice-A person who has given no thought to the question of God, or one who displays a disregard for the question.

Also there are emotional atheists, but these are not true atheists. They simply choose to not believe in God or hate him for a psycholgoical need. Ex: They may be laughed at if they believe in God. They want to get even with him.

Things that should not be confused with atheism:

agnostic-A person who believes one cannot know whether or not there is a God, Supreme Being, Ultimate Force, or Existance.

Skeptic-A person who believes nothing can be truly known.


Also, atheism should not be considered the same thing as being areligous, or having no religion. Buhdism for the most part is an atheistic religion. Also, a very few Hindus are atheists.(Yes, some Hindus are atheists.)

So I'm curious what kinds of atheists we have in this guild. Tell me which type you are and why.  

[Lethkhar]

You tell me. I think that it's impossible for there to be a deity, and I can prove it.

However, all of my proofs rely on the fact that my senses are telling the truth, an assumption which cannot be made according to Rene Descartes.

Therefore, I conclude that I do not believe that a deity exists, but I also accept the fact that there is a very, very small chance that I may be wrong.

Does that make me a Philosophical Atheist? I mean, I reject the ASSUMPTION that there is a deity...I always considered myself a Weak Atheist...  

[Cherry Picker]

What kind of atheist are you if you treat religion the same way you treat a very bad, unsupported scientific hypothosis. I think this guy has it down. (Snipped from a dialog with a fundamentalist.)

Bruce

If your God really exists, and he really "perform many resurrections in this day and age," then it should hardly be an unreasonable request that I be allowed to be present when Jesus performs just one of these patented resurrections today on behalf of one of his grieving followers! I want to be one among the "crowd" of "people" standing round in order that I may witness said resurrection, and "believe" and "be filled with awe" and "praise God" as a result of having seen! (John 11:42, 12:17; Luke 7:11,12,16)

 

[Game Phreak Zero]

I am a philosophical atheist. I find it impossible to discount the possibility of something spiritual. I don't believe there is, but I can't prove there isn't.  

[Lethkhar]

Cherry Picker

What kind of atheist are you if you treat religion the same way you treat a very bad, unsupported scientific hypothosis. I think this guy has it down. (Snipped from a dialog with a fundamentalist.)

Bruce

If your God really exists, and he really "perform many resurrections in this day and age," then it should hardly be an unreasonable request that I be allowed to be present when Jesus performs just one of these patented resurrections today on behalf of one of his grieving followers! I want to be one among the "crowd" of "people" standing round in order that I may witness said resurrection, and "believe" and "be filled with awe" and "praise God" as a result of having seen! (John 11:42, 12:17; Luke 7:11,12,16)

Dude. This guy sounds just like me when I'm arguing with Christians. His arguments are quite similar. Except a little more obnoxious...  

[Muaethia]

Philisophical atheist. I reject the assumption that there is a god- the 'innocent until proven guilty' take on it (i.e. I won't believe it until it is proved). Because I see no proof around me that a god does exist, and the arguments the main religions use can easily be answered by science, I'm just not going to buy it.

However, I do believe in some other spiritual phenomenons, like ghosts. And I do believe that there is something other than the body itself inside the body- a soul of some kind? Just not the 'ghost' type of soul, more like a structure of energy that is the mind. The mind being a hypothetical concept, of course.  

[CGurp]

I'm a philosphical atheist. I can't believe in something that makes no rational sense; is told in different stories; has no evidence; and especially can't when the supporters are ignorant, stupid, and make something up for thier religion when it's being argued by logic.

My mom is a wannabe emotional atheists. She says shes turning into an "atheist", but she still curses at God & Jesus and says that when life gets better she'll be a theist again.  

[maybebaby888888888]

Cherry Picker

What kind of atheist are you if you treat religion the same way you treat a very bad, unsupported scientific hypothosis. I think this guy has it down. (Snipped from a dialog with a fundamentalist.)

Bruce

If your God really exists, and he really "perform many resurrections in this day and age," then it should hardly be an unreasonable request that I be allowed to be present when Jesus performs just one of these patented resurrections today on behalf of one of his grieving followers! I want to be one among the "crowd" of "people" standing round in order that I may witness said resurrection, and "believe" and "be filled with awe" and "praise God" as a result of having seen! (John 11:42, 12:17; Luke 7:11,12,16)

I wonder if this guy ever got a good arguement back. Because this guys arguement seems very easy to beat to me. Heck, I could do it.  

[Bowmore]

I selected skeptic, but I wish you had provided a catch-all "other" option -- that's what I would have selected.

I'm a combination between a skeptic and what I call a "cautious optimist". I don't believe in anything unless it is proven to me, but there are also certain concepts, some spiritual, that I would like to believe in but haven't been proven to me yet.  

[Cherry Picker]

celestasia

I wonder if this guy ever got a good arguement back. Because this guys arguement seems very easy to beat to me. Heck, I could do it.

Are you basing that claim off of having actually read his argument in full, or off of a two line snipet?  

[Sanguvixen]

I don't like the idea of labeling athiests depending upon what they believe.

I deny the existance of a God. He doesn't exist. It is simple as that. Term it as you will, but I will not go out and say "I am this kind of atheist" or "I am that kind of athiest", because all things are subject to change, and I hate labels anyway.

Atheist is a term for a person who has a lack of belief in god. When you start tagging things to the beginning...you are creating labels. I'd rather not be a part of that.

 

[S. Shark]

I guess I'm a philosphical atheist, by your definition. I reject the assumption that there is God like I reject the assumption that there is an Invisible Pink Unicorn. There could be, but since there's really no way of knowing if they exist or what they want or if I should care what they want... well, it just isn't worth my precious little time on Earth.

But, uh, where'd all these labels come from? All I've heard of are strong atheist, weak atheist, and atheistic agnostic.  

[Dathu]

I dunno if I agree with the definitions, so let's just say that I'm Atheist, and I don't believe in anything with out scientifically recognized evidance.  

[maybebaby888888888]

Dathu

I dunno if I agree with the definitions, so let's just say that I'm Atheist, and I don't believe in anything with out scientifically recognized evidance.

Well, I've learned them through my World Relgions studies. Of course it was in the abscence of religion section. So they are accurate.

Also, I'm not saying we should go around and say, "Oh, I'm a philishophical atheists." Just saying your an atheist will do. However, I think it is important to understand atheism, I guess (not sure if that was put in the best way.) You see many people want to be atheists, but they think that all atheists are materialists. Also, when I talk to materialist it's like talking to an opposing side sometimes. What "kind" you are highly effects your out look sometimes.  

[maybebaby888888888]

Cherry Picker

celestasia

I wonder if this guy ever got a good arguement back. Because this guys arguement seems very easy to beat to me. Heck, I could do it.

Are you basing that claim off of having actually read his argument in full, or off of a two line snipet?

(Reads arguement in full.) Yes, it would still be rathar easy. That Amanda chick must be really stupid. Maybe she's own of those Christians who never picked up a Bible or something. I don't know, but in full honesty, I could play devil's adovacate and probably when that argument. Although, after reading good portion of the entire webpage it seems like a waste of time.