Atheist vs. Intentional Atheist
Offline I am presently in Boston. Whether I flew here, drove here, or have lived here all my life is of no consequence to the fact that I am in Boston. There is no difference between the way in which I am in Boston that arises from the different paths I may have taken to arrive here or whether or not I have ever been anywhere else. To say that I am in Boston via 747 or via birth is a distinction without a difference as it pertains to my being in Boston.
As you may have guessed by the title, this thread is to discuss the distinction that is sometimes made between the intentional atheist and the atheist 'au natural', if you will. Does the means at which one arrives at having no belief in any god or gods have any bearing on their state as an atheist?
Let's look at it this way:
Where would one be able to draw the distinction between one who has no god belief due to never seeing a reason to form a god belief and one who has no god belief due to looking at all possible god beliefs and rationally deciding that any god belief was unreasonable? Is there an actual difference between the two individuals lack of belief or is the difference only in the vehicle by which they arrived at lacking belief?
The reason I ask is because people often employ this intentional atheist category as a means of what I can only see as justification for atheistic apologetics. When one finds one's self desiring a criteria by which to distinguish one's self from an atheist who may have become a theist (educated or not) or may be an atheist for what one may consider less than intellectual reasons, and thus place one's self on a (self righteous?) higher plane of belief lacking, they often resort to this type of classification. Personally, I feel as if this type of distinction drawing is very similar if not identical to the type employed by theists when wanting to distance themselves from less than desirable ideological neighbors and consider the lack of any quantiative difference between the actuality of the two positions to make the distinction misleading if not dishonest.
Thoughts?
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
- Login to post comments
Well, since you are ignoring my posts, I will just pull statements you have made to others.
Your quote above is a bad analogy. Protecting the freedom I have as an American means a great deal to me. I did not personally fight for it, but I am aware of it just the same and make every effort to ensure that I still have it.
The au-atheists here may not have deconversion stories but face the same battle to retain their freedom to think for themselves as ex-theists do. Atheists are atheists regardless of how they came to be that way.
I have to wonder, since you mentioned that you are raising your children atheist. Will you think less of them as you do the default atheists on this forum?
I wonder how many times we'll need to repeat this...
If god takes life he's an indian giver
The reason I used the "asshat" language is because you seem to be saying because you might have had a little harder road to travel than an au-atheist you have somehow done more to earn it.
What I am saying is, it doesn't matter how you come to your atheism. No one has earned it more than the next guy.
Using analogies like yours make atheism more of a 'belief' system than the mere fact that you lack belief in a god. Making the argument that it is somehow earned makes it appear to be more than simple lack of belief, it almost equates it to achieving salvation. I am sure you do not want to go there....
That is another issue and not really on topic but I think more people should stand up an say "I am an atheist" instead of pussy-footing around.
Again... I disagree. It means you achieved the same result as someone else by different means. Your circumstances were different therefore you arrived at the destination (atheism) via a different path. It does not mean your trials were any more harsh, and it doesn't mean you are any more or less worthy. You are just an atheist, I am an atheist, PariahJane is an atheist. It doesn't matter how we got here, we are here now and need to stand up for ourselves.
This analogy of freedom, does the black man who helped the underground railroad have any more claim to his freedom than the black man who took his licks from the master so his wife and kids wouldn't be tortured? But when they are both free, they have both had hardships.
I was raised in a family that wsn't religious and never discussed religion. It all seemed ridiculous to me from the earliest I can remember. Neither of my parents are atheists per say as I think they both have some kind of hocus pocus creratorbelief but it was not something that mattered or played any part in our lifes and so wasn't talked about.
I never was persuaded to try the whole god groupie thing by any friends or relatives who may have been believers as I have never really been able to undeerstand what it is people think they are referring to when they use the term god. It has always seemed just like a token used to mean explanation for the unknown that had no real substance or actuality to it. I've never been able to see what concept it was actually supposed to reference and I've never met anyone who was able to make the concept, if it can even be referred to as such, considerable much less believable.
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
Yes. This is what I was trying to explain earlier.
I think what may be happening is that people are viewing their atheism from different perspectives. For the ex-theist the god concept possibly has an actual weight to it. It denotes something and requires either a yes or no vote as far as belief goes. Many probably hold an actual disbelief in their ex-god.
For the au-atheist however, god is often something that has no status. It is not somethinjg one can believe in or disbelieve in as it isn't an actual concept. It is just this term people use that doesn't actually reference anything. Therefor they would simply say I don't have a god belief.
The ex-theist might consider arguments against god to be defending their belief, their atheism while the au natural atheist considers arguments against god to be telling the theist "I do not accept your belief system". They have no actual position to defend, they just don't accept the theists position. These two different perceptions of atheism may cause one to misunderstand the statements of the other.
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
Okay, here's the short (and pretty dull) story of my au-atheism. Hmm, are we coining a new term here?
I grew up in a large, Catholic family. My older brothers and sisters attended Catholic school. The three youngest kids (of which I am one) did not, for financial reasons. You'd think my family would have been pretty churchy, but that wasn't the case. By the time us youngest kids were born my mother was pretty fed up with the church. Being told by the priest that it was expected that she continue having babies, when the process was literally killing her was probably the last straw for her. We said grace before dinner every night but that was about the extent of our religious indoctrination. We knew enough of the church rules not to embarass anyone when we had to attend a wedding or funeral, but didn't attend church & didn't discuss religion.
As a teen I wondered if I was missing out on something, so like PariahJane I checked out some different paths. The warm fuzzy parts were all good, but eventually they'd come down to a requirement to believe in an imaginary higher power (or powers). I simply couldn't buy into any of them. To me, if I couldn't accept the whole package, I shouldn't be a hypocrite and accept any of it.
Susan
Woah, woah... hang on a second here...
My position on this all along has been that I don't think there are actually different types of atheists. I have said this. But I do believe there are people who perceive different types of atheists. This doesn't just include atheists who perceive different types of atheists, this also includes theists who might perceive different types of atheists for a completely different set of reasons.
Are these thoughts based on fact or scientific observation? No, I'm simply speculating. I see no problem in doing that. Also, I have never implied at any time that I consider you a lesser atheist. I have specifically said before that I consider all atheists to be on the same level.
And millions of people believe Jesus was a real guy. Doesn't make it true. Again, what is the basis of the assertion?
No, it doesn't. But I'm not saying that there truly are different kinds, so it doesn't really matter. I'm simply saying some people perceive different kinds. The very existence of this thread seems to be grounds enough for that.
The fact that I was never indoctrinated personally does not mean my "au natural" atheism is born of ignorance, lack of exposure or lack of thought. That's an assumption, and it's an incorrect one. I am simply asking people to recognize and examine their assumptions.
At no point did I ever intend to give the impression that this was how I felt toward you or any other "au-natural". I have explicitly said before that I consider the au-natural and the deconvert to be equal in their beliefs. It's just the vehicle that is different.
I just want to make sure I'm being understood. I feel like I've given you the wrong impression of where I stand on this.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
Crap, I'm, still a 'young' atheist. Just about a 3 year old being that my deconversion is that young. So these are pretty new ideas for me to throw around. I've never really thought much on the 'roads' to athiesm. I'm still just a recent atheist pissed at his religious upbringing. Let me mull all these ideas over for a few years.
Sorry guys. I don't even personally know hardly any au-atheists personally. I guess I'm being pretty egocentric in my thoughts.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
I'll say it again. I am simply asking people to recognize and examine their assumptions. That's all.
It's the comments like those I quoted that I take exception to (none of which can be attributed to you, Archeopteryx, as far as I can see).
The assertions being made that au natural atheists are more suseptable to conversion, that we would more readily abandon rationality, that we're uninformed about religion, etc. I find not only untrue, but ill considered and insulting.
Yes, we have taken different paths to arrive at our atheism, and that gives us different perspectives. I recognize that. I don't believe it's all that significant in the larger picture.
Susan
Watcher -
Thank you. People here come from different backgrounds, different educations, etc. The only thing that we all have in common is that we do not think there is a god out there somewhere. We're just atheists.
Not only that, but we all came here to learn, or to make a difference with regard to religion and politics. Personally, I think this is what makes us better than the people who trudge through life without ever actually thinking about it.
I first started lurking around here because I was interested in the separation of church and state. Instead I find myself attempting to understand the basics of biology and physics (everything I avoided in high school and college).
If god takes life he's an indian giver