I guess I'm technically an atheist according to some people I talked to here in another thread, but I feel like if I am an atheist, I am not an atheist in the same way I used to be before my liberal postmodern Christian phase. I also think that calling myself an atheist is misleading because I have some vague spiritual, irrational tendencies.
I sometimes think there could be a god and think in a way as if it exists... but not all the time. I kind of teeter between believing and not believing. I kind of like the freedom I feel from that. Even if I am an atheist, I am getting to an age where I try to avoid most labels and would rather not identify myself as such.

Filthy New Ager!

I don't really care. You don't want to identify yourself as an atheist. All right. So?

All of us have "irrational tendencies". At least those of us that are human!

If you don't actively assert that there is a God then you could use the label 'atheist'. If you prefer to say "who knows, there might be a God" perhaps 'agnostic' is label you feel happier with. Whatever...

As Fallible says, labels are not important. That said atheism is generally accepted as not believing in god(s), seems from your description above you fit the definition, but have doubts. Doubts are not belief.

Pretty much what the others have said, if you don't believe in a god or gods you fit under the atheist label. If you don't want to use it for whatever reason then don't. Labels are just a way of getting across to others an idea of some part of you or your ideas, skip them if you want and just explain it in detail.

Believing in other things has no affect on your belief in a god or gods, atheists can belief in ghosts, spirits, aliens abducting people, in crystal healing or whatever they damn well please.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:Pretty much what the others have said, if you don't believe in a god or gods you fit under the atheist label. If you don't want to use it for whatever reason then don't. Labels are just a way of getting across to others an idea of some part of you or your ideas, skip them if you want and just explain it in detail.

Believing in other things has no affect on your belief in a god or gods, atheists can belief in ghosts, spirits, aliens abducting people, in crystal healing or whatever they damn well please.

With respect to the underlined (my underline) portion of your statement, labels are slightly more useful than that. In politics and law, labels help us identify constituencies. That can be useful for identifying those who are "on your side," but they are even more useful if, say, you're in a minority and you wish to demonstrate that your constituency is growing, should be taken seriously, and perhaps ought not be discriminated against anymore.

From a labels-as-constituencies perspective, and especially in countries with strongly religious political blocs like the US, I do not feel it is necessarily a good thing to not identify as an atheist if you are one. Not if we ever want to be treated as equals under the law. To the best of my knowledge, there is only one city in the US where atheists are a protected class. Until that changes, I'll feel the need to encourage atheists to identify as such.

I can understand that feeling. I would like more people who are in my opinion atheists to use the label so that as a group we are larger. But on the singular interaction level I wouldn't want someone to take on a label they don't feel safe or happy using.

Is there a term for someone who switches from agnostic-atheist to agnostic-theist?

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

DarthHelmet86 wrote:Pretty much what the others have said, if you don't believe in a god or gods you fit under the atheist label. If you don't want to use it for whatever reason then don't. Labels are just a way of getting across to others an idea of some part of you or your ideas, skip them if you want and just explain it in detail.

Believing in other things has no affect on your belief in a god or gods, atheists can belief in ghosts, spirits, aliens abducting people, in crystal healing or whatever they damn well please.

With respect to the underlined (my underline) portion of your statement, labels are slightly more useful than that. In politics and law, labels help us identify constituencies. That can be useful for identifying those who are "on your side," but they are even more useful if, say, you're in a minority and you wish to demonstrate that your constituency is growing, should be taken seriously, and perhaps ought not be discriminated against anymore.

From a labels-as-constituencies perspective, and especially in countries with strongly religious political blocs like the US, I do not feel it is necessarily a good thing to not identify as an atheist if you are one. Not if we ever want to be treated as equals under the law. To the best of my knowledge, there is only one city in the US where atheists are a protected class. Until that changes, I'll feel the need to encourage atheists to identify as such.

Better than arguing about whether or not one believes in deity, singular, plural, composite, what have you, isn't it just better to take a position with respect to theology? Mine is that theology is contentless. The way to see this is to remove all the tautologies, and see what you have left, afterward.

If mac_guffin has a small hope of coming up with some theology that has content, that hope goes with my best wishes, but my expectations are that he/she will come a cropper.

MacIver wrote:Is there a term for someone who switches from agnostic-atheist to agnostic-theist?

Bi-theist?

DarthHelmet86 wrote:I can understand that feeling. I would like more people who are in my opinion atheists to use the label so that as a group we are larger. But on the singular interaction level I wouldn't want someone to take on a label they don't feel safe or happy using.

I agree that people who would feel unsafe or unhappy should not be pressured to take on the label. But choosing not to apply the label because you've got "vague spiritual, irrational tendencies" doesn't fall under that. Everybody has those because we are irrational monkey-people.

I also object to people choosing not to apply the label to themselves because "that's not who I am." No shit. Neither am I heterosexual in the sense that I define myself by my heterosexuality. Neither am I white because I define myself by my skin color. Neither is someone else gay because they define themselves by their homosexuality. A label, no matter how apt, is never who anyone is. Humans are wonderfully complex animals which will never be adequately defined by any label other than "human" and that only tautologically. In fact, the difference between who we are and what we believe is the basis for every civil argument people engage in. If people were their beliefs, all arguments would be ad hominem.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

DarthHelmet86 wrote:I can understand that feeling. I would like more people who are in my opinion atheists to use the label so that as a group we are larger. But on the singular interaction level I wouldn't want someone to take on a label they don't feel safe or happy using.

I agree that people who would feel unsafe or unhappy should not be pressured to take on the label. But choosing not to apply the label because you've got "vague spiritual, irrational tendencies" doesn't fall under that. Everybody has those because we are irrational monkey-people.

I also object to people choosing not to apply the label to themselves because "that's not who I am." No shit. Neither am I heterosexual in the sense that I define myself by my heterosexuality. Neither am I white because I define myself by my skin color. Neither is someone else gay because they define themselves by their homosexuality. A label, no matter how apt, is never who anyone is. Humans are wonderfully complex animals which will never be adequately defined by any label other than "human" and that only tautologically. In fact, the difference between who we are and what we believe is the basis for every civil argument people engage in. If people were their beliefs, all arguments would be ad hominem.

I 100% agree with you.

Well, damn. Now I'm going to have to go pick some other fight.

Seriously, though, in my non-silico life, gently trying to get atheists I know to feel comfortable coming out as atheists (if it's safe and they can be happy) has become something of a hobby horse for me. Seven percent of USAians polled say they don't believe in a god or universal spirit, yet only 2.4% identify as atheists. On top of that, 14% of those who identify as atheists when polled also say they believe in a god or universal spirit. This tells me that it is imperative that we broaden the conversational base with respect to atheism. There are a lot of atheists out there who either don't know they're atheists or have bought into the connotations created by theists with respect to atheism.

Seven percent would be as powerful a constituency, if given voice, as the one which has recently won all the gay rights victories. I feel that we could use that. At the very least, we need to fight for atheism to become a protected class- and not by defining it as a religion, which is the current work-around.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... -atheists/

[Edited to fix a statistic and to include a link.]

smudge wrote:All of us have "irrational tendencies". At least those of us that are human!

Tendencies? Hell, I've got irrational habits.

You're just a particular arrangement of fundamental forces, particles & spacetime

With PZ Myers around, I'm not too inclined to use the word "atheist" if it means taking sides.

I've said previously that it's been a quick way to dissuade religious people advertising their Church on the street. Last time I said "I'm an atheist", and the response was "Oh, so you believe in nothing?" and I went "Yeah." It worked pretty well. If I'd merely said "non-religious" there may have been a chance that he'd have followed up with some stuff about "higher powers" or something.

My response to the smug assertion that I believe in nothing is to say that I believe in reality.

zulumoose wrote:My response to the smug assertion that I believe in nothing is to say that I believe in reality.

Actually, it didn't sound unkind when he said it, while that retort would have been.

I save my arseholery for internet forums, especially when posting under the name "VazScep." That guy's a dick.

Animavore wrote:Filthy New Ager!

lol Well, I think stuff like Ouija boards are silly. I don't follow anything like horoscopes or use crystals like a lot of those types do.
I believe science trumps everything else, but I just love to explore different beliefs and ideas without being tied down.