Types of Atheism [split topic]

[cuchulain]

If people ask what specific religion I am, I use stoic atheist.  I follow stoic principles(in my own fashion) and do not believe in God.  Most people get hung up on the Atheist label and never remember to ask what a stoic is.

 

 

 

Edited July 15, 2017 by Amulet
[Admin note: This topic was split from Do you identify as Pagan? to continue this branch of conversation]

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

4 hours ago, cuchulain said:

If people ask what specific religion I am, I use stoic atheist.  I follow stoic principles(in my own fashion) and do not believe in God.  Most people get hung up on the Atheist label and never remember to ask what a stoic is.

 

 

Have you considered just saying "Stoic"?  You might have more intelligent conversations.  At least, less annoying ones.  

[Amulet]

4 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

Have you considered just saying "Stoic"?  You might have more intelligent conversations.  At least, less annoying ones.  

 

I know there is a list of different Atheisms but Stoic all by itself wouldn't be ringing any bells off the top for me. I would probably squint my eyes and say, "huh?" lol 

Probably the opposite of the intelligent conversations you would have hoped for.   (To open with anyway.)

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

5 hours ago, Amulet said:

 

I know there is a list of different Atheisms but Stoic all by itself wouldn't be ringing any bells off the top for me. I would probably squint my eyes and say, "huh?" lol 

Probably the opposite of the intelligent conversations you would have hoped for.   (To open with anyway.)

 

I have been in too many stupid arguments about what Atheism means.  For instance, "hard" vs. "soft".  I find that it makes for arguments instead of conversation.  The passions run deep.  

[Amulet]

5 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

I have been in too many stupid arguments about what Atheism means.  For instance, "hard" vs. "soft".  I find that it makes for arguments instead of conversation.  The passions run deep.  

 

Oh I believe you. I have seen those kind of conversations go off the rails. Unexpectedly I've seen Buddhist communities go through that with the 'varying degrees' of atheism and orthodoxy between eastern and western and seeing those arguments makes me scratch my head. And of course the side gallery is watching this thinking, "attached much?!" 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

5 minutes ago, Amulet said:

 

Oh I believe you. I have seen those kind of conversations go off the rails. Unexpectedly I've seen Buddhist communities go through that with the 'varying degrees' of atheism and orthodoxy between eastern and western and seeing those arguments makes me scratch my head. And of course the side gallery is watching this thinking, "attached much?!" 

 

I think it is the nature of Humanity.  Atheists -- the people who don't believe -- don't like nuance.  Agnostics -- the people who don't know -- get hung up on intellectual purity.  I am convinced that there is no label that won't bring out the haters.

 

My Agnostic ordination is from the Apathetic Agnostic Church.  The motto is "We don't know and we don't care".

 

I should add that they never got incorporated.  The Church isn't looking for a tax dodge and we don't care what the government thinks of us.  

[Amulet]

1 minute ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

I think it is the nature of Humanity.  Atheists -- the people who don't believe -- don't like nuance.  Agnostics -- the people who don't know -- get hung up on intellectual purity.  I am convinced that there is no label that won't bring out the haters.

 

My Agnostic ordination is from the Apathetic Agnostic Church.  The motto is "We don't know and we don't care".

 

I should add that they never got incorporated.  The Church isn't looking for a tax dodge and we don't care what the government thinks of us.  

 

The term I know for that one is Apatheism. I wasn't sure if it was a slang term. Another one is Ignosticism. And I don't know if that one is slang either.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 minute ago, Amulet said:

 

The term I know for that one is Apatheism. I wasn't sure if it was a slang term. Another one is Ignosticism. And I don't know if that one is slang either.

 

Apatheism is the term I know.  For the people who don't care whether or not God exists -- and refuse to argue about it.  We combine it with Agnostic.  Apathetic Agnostic.  It's a simple position.  We will talk about anything.  We're done arguing.  It doesn't matter.  "We don't know and we don't care."  At least they have a sense of humor.  Have you noticed that?  Religious people don't like to laugh.

[Amulet]

7 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

Apatheism is the term I know.  For the people who don't care whether or not God exists -- and refuse to argue about it.  We combine it with Agnostic.  Apathetic Agnostic.  It's a simple position.  We will talk about anything.  We're done arguing.  It doesn't matter.  "We don't know and we don't care."  At least they have a sense of humor.  Have you noticed that?  Religious people don't like to laugh.

 

Aww. The same could be said for anyone arguing the nuances, though. I think it's a matter of someone taking something too seriously and needing to be right (or not be wrong) with wherever they happen to be on the meter.

 

The Apathetic Agnostic Church actually exists as like a congregation?

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

15 hours ago, Amulet said:

 

Aww. The same could be said for anyone arguing the nuances, though. I think it's a matter of someone taking something too seriously and needing to be right (or not be wrong) with wherever they happen to be on the meter.

 

The Apathetic Agnostic Church actually exists as like a congregation?

 

Alas, no.  It exists only on the Net.  

 

Agnostic churches are different.  We don't have to assemble in one place, to proclaim that we don't know.

 

We also don't get excited by credentials.  It's not like like being ordained as an Agnostic minister caries any authority.  Even we don't care.   Truly, like herding cats.  

 

   

 

 

[cuchulain]

Stoic is slightly different than Atheist.  Probably a big part of the confusion is that I am multiple.  Stoic is something of a logician.  Usually they believe in Logos, something along the lines of universal consciousness?  I don't believe in that personally, since I have seen no evidence to convince me it exists.  So I also utilize the label Atheist in an attempt to let people know there is a difference.  

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

24 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

Stoic is slightly different than Atheist.  Probably a big part of the confusion is that I am multiple.  Stoic is something of a logician.  Usually they believe in Logos, something along the lines of universal consciousness?  I don't believe in that personally, since I have seen no evidence to convince me it exists.  So I also utilize the label Atheist in an attempt to let people know there is a difference.  

 

Yes.  The search for the perfect label.  Good luck with that.  

[Amulet]

2 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

Yes.  The search for the perfect label.  Good luck with that.  

 

Was thinking the same. Even the concept of what Logos is or means has all sorts of different flavors depending on the area of study.  

I don't equate it to universal consciousness. Probably the opposite of anything universal for me. In my practice Logos is half of a perspective to study and needs its counterpart to be considered whole truth. Kind of bi-partisan-like. Difficult to explain.

 

Obviously the quest for labels is always going to be something to iron out, lol  Is Stoic considered more like on the hardcore logic/proof/evidence/absolutes side of things? Or is it more liberal than that? 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Amulet said:

 

Was thinking the same. Even the concept of what Logos is or means has all sorts of different flavors depending on the area of study.   I don't equate it to universal consciousness. Probably the opposite of anything universal for me. In my practice Logos is half of a perspective to study and needs its counterpart to be considered whole truth. Kind of bi-partisan-like. Difficult to explain.

 

Obviously the quest for labels is always going to be something to iron out, lol  Is Stoic considered more like on the hardcore logic/proof/evidence/absolutes side of things? Or is it more liberal than that? 

 

 

For me, "Logos" is the "Word" from John.  "In the beginning was the word......."  Not Universal at all.  Very Christian.  

 

 

John 1:1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

 

There is another possibility.  I remember a Hindu/Vedic teacher applying the "word" to the original sound.  The original sound was A.U.M.   (OM)

Edited July 16, 2017 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[cuchulain]

I have encountered the original sound idea before in Druidry.  It is IAO, according to Iolo Morganwyg.  

Yeah, I guess it can come off as the search for the perfect label.  But for me it isn't.  It's simply the most accurate label at this time.  It might change, or it might not.  And in the end, I tend to live by an axiom most people have heard.  "What's in a name?  That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."  It doesn't much matter to me what people call me.  I am what I am, regardless of title.  Some might even call me a martian, but the truth is not altered by the label placed.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, cuchulain said:

I have encountered the original sound idea before in Druidry.  It is IAO, according to Iolo Morganwyg.  

Yeah, I guess it can come off as the search for the perfect label.  But for me it isn't.  It's simply the most accurate label at this time.  It might change, or it might not.  And in the end, I tend to live by an axiom most people have heard.  "What's in a name?  That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."  It doesn't much matter to me what people call me.  I am what I am, regardless of title.  Some might even call me a martian, but the truth is not altered by the label placed.

 

In the abstract this is true.  A label doesn't matter.  On the other hand, if people who hear your label hear something awful -- like immoral scum -- maybe it does make a difference.

[Amulet]

4 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

In the abstract this is true.  A label doesn't matter.  On the other hand, if people who hear your label hear something awful -- like immoral scum -- maybe it does make a difference.

 

In the end, it doesn't. For someone wanting to try to relate or gain some understanding, it does. In a lot of cases, I would like to know. Without intentionally pigeon-holing someone, or going by a label, it is a starting point to work from and build on.

As for me, I don't like labels on myself either, but I find that I can use them in an effort to be more helpful for relating that my "kind" may not mean what they think. They need the referencing point first and if open to discussion not stay so locked in to their stereotype. Interpretations vary so widely these days.

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, Amulet said:

 

In the end, it doesn't. For someone wanting to try to relate or gain some understanding, it does. In a lot of cases, I would like to know. Without intentionally pigeon-holing someone, or going by a label, it is a starting point to work from and build on.

As for me, I don't like labels on myself either, but I find that I can use them in an effort to be more helpful for relating that my "kind" may not mean what they think. They need the referencing point first and if open to discussion not stay so locked in to their stereotype. Interpretations vary so widely these days.

 

 

Yes.  It does.  Which kills the point of the label.

 

Try saying "Witch" to a Fundamentalist Christian.  See what kind of peaceful, rational discussion, you get about living in harmony with Nature.  

 

Take the same Fundamentalist.  Say "Agnostic".  Does this signify someone who is rational and open minded?  Or someone who is indecisive and needs help seeing the "Light"?   In Saudi Arabia, "Agnostic" gets people killed.  

 

No matter what label we use, it will be misconstrued, turned inside out and used against us.

[Amulet]

3 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

Yes.  It does.  Which kills the point of the label.

 

Try saying "Witch" to a Fundamentalist Christian.  See what kind of peaceful, rational discussion, you get about living in harmony with Nature.  

 

Take the same Fundamentalist.  Say "Agnostic".  Does this signify someone who is rational and open minded?  Or someone who is indecisive and needs help seeing the "Light"?   In Saudi Arabia, "Agnostic" gets people killed.  

 

No matter what label we use, it will be misconstrued, turned inside out and used against us.

 

In a location where deviating from the 'required' norm puts us under the threat of danger, that is beyond Fundamentalism, that is Extremist. There's no way I would even speak the words.

 

There are people who profess Fundamentalism. If they engage to argue, I reject their label. Fundamentalists don't mingle with Heathen to argue. The longer they hang around, the more they are exposing themselves to "evil" which they should be staying away from. I don't find there to be an issue there. So it leaves the people pretending to be Fundamentalists to have an argument about right and wrong and to make me wrong - there's no point to that as you said. That goes for any closed-minded convo. It's just...dumb.

 

For anyone who isn't a fundamentalist or even riding that line which is the experience I have most often, using the label as a reference point brings up productive conversation. I don't find that it is used against me, but again, I am only speaking from my own experience. This has been the larger part of my experience, and the former much less. But also I am not in a Bible Belt area or one that is so conservative that people would be vandalizing my home or anything if I didn't profess to be something they didn't approve of.  Times are gettin' scary though!

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

9 hours ago, Amulet said:

 

In a location where deviating from the 'required' norm puts us under the threat of danger, that is beyond Fundamentalism, that is Extremist. There's no way I would even speak the words.

 

There are people who profess Fundamentalism. If they engage to argue, I reject their label. Fundamentalists don't mingle with Heathen to argue. The longer they hang around, the more they are exposing themselves to "evil" which they should be staying away from. I don't find there to be an issue there. So it leaves the people pretending to be Fundamentalists to have an argument about right and wrong and to make me wrong - there's no point to that as you said. That goes for any closed-minded convo. It's just...dumb.

 

For anyone who isn't a fundamentalist or even riding that line which is the experience I have most often, using the label as a reference point brings up productive conversation. I don't find that it is used against me, but again, I am only speaking from my own experience. This has been the larger part of my experience, and the former much less. But also I am not in a Bible Belt area or one that is so conservative that people would be vandalizing my home or anything if I didn't profess to be something they didn't approve of.  Times are gettin' scary though!

 

 

 

Sometimes, it's subtle.  Like being afraid of losing your friends.  Or worse.  Finding out your friends don't like you any more.  Or the good will is there, but there is nothing left to discuss.