Two Types of Atheism, and What is Wrong with Each

May 5, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Psychology Today

Type I atheism is the denial of God, typically a sky god. The problem with his type of atheism is that it typically attacks a straw man. In her book "God," religious scholar Karen Armstrong criticized Richard Dawkins and others for advocating atheism by attacking sky gods. Even heaven isn't really meant to be a place in the sky, but somnething beyond the material world.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of37
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
May 6, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

The first of the of the three types of atheist, is the not yet indoctrinated atheist, which consists of mainly the toddlers, infants and newborns, of all groups of people. To a lessor degree this first group contains the children of these same people. This is because it is most often during childhood, that the indoctrinations take place. This is necessary to religions future, after a certain age a child is more likely to the see the ridiculousness of the god concepts.
As of now, no one has figured out how to indoctrinate before birth, and if they ever do, children will be born into whatever religion the mother's anesthesiologist adheres to. This will be of course, irreversible.

The second type of atheist has been indoctrinated into a specific religion, and rejects all god claims, except those pertaining to his or her specific religion. In rejecting the validity of all remaining gods, this theist is in fact, a self made atheist. To no longer be atheist, this adherent of a specific god or gods need only, to accept that all gods are of the same cloth. No one is any less real than all of the others.

The third type of atheist, is much like myself. We have studied and truly learned that what many religions offer, can be boiled down to nothing more than balderdash. The gods are imperfect constructs, and the Abrahamic god, one of the most flawed of these less than godly things, which man has chosen to use as tools against other men. We are the avowed atheist.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
May 6, 2012
 

Judged:

4

1

1

LOL
Another godbot trying to tell atheists what they think.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
May 6, 2012
 

Judged:

3

1

1

Oh look! Another psychologist who failed to get any scientific people to take them serious decided to publish another opinion piece as if it was science.

“Fortes Fortuna Juvat, ”

Since: Dec 09

Wichita. Ks.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
May 6, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

I think that people with delusions should not even try to explain others belief or non-belief.

“Knowledge is true opinion”

Since: Mar 07

Chesapeake, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
May 7, 2012
 
Reason Personified wrote:
The second type of atheist has been indoctrinated into a specific religion, and rejects all god claims, except those pertaining to his or her specific religion. In rejecting the validity of all remaining gods, this theist is in fact, a self made atheist. To no longer be atheist, this adherent of a specific god or gods need only, to accept that all gods are of the same cloth. No one is any less real than all of the others.
And what would this person be called?
One that actually believes all the gods ever dreamed of in all the religions of man are all equally real and equally false.
QUITTNER

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
May 7, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2:36 pm, Monday, May 7, 2012:
RE: Two Types of Atheism, and What is Wrong with Each
..... I have posted in the past that there are 2 kinds of atheists:
1) Those who deny the existence of God and
2) Anyone who doesn't believe whatever I (anyone, including clergy) believe. According to that there are many millions of so-called "atheists".
..... Note that many atheists have had religious experiences that were quite different from what their local clergy were selling, and these "atheists" may KNOW God - they do not need to only believe, and they may have 2-way communications with God or gods or some other spirits via their thoughts.
Amused

Lowell, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
May 7, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

Interesting. First the author constructs a straw man of atheists who reject a "sky god", without proposing or defining any other kind of god that is not such a being, and possibly might not be objectionable to atheists of his supposed "type 1". Even a single example of such a non- sky god deity is missing. Perhaps because the derisive term sky god encompasses all the commonly proposed deities.

As to the second supposed "type" of atheist, the author presents only his "belief" that life has meaning, with utterly no evidence that such 'meaning' exists, or that if it does exist, religion is the only way that such meaning can be found. Psychology is a science, although often grouped with the "soft sciences". I am at a loss to figure out how the peer review process would work when the only evidence in support of a conclusion was the author's pre-existing beliefs. That sort of thing may pass muster in theology, but not in science.

The discussion of the supposed second type of atheist also suffers from an assumption that an amorphous 'spirituality' is the equivalent of 'god', such that denial of the existence of 'god' means denial of all 'spirituality'. This is a false equivalence. Defining "religion" as organizations that promote "spirituality", and not as "organizations that promote a belief in an omniscient, omnipotent being" blurs the distinction between believers in god and various new-age woo beyond recognition.

The author then assumes that "religion", which he defines as some formless spirituality which may or may not include a deity, is the only path to finding meaning in life. The overwhelming majority of members of the National Academy of Science are atheists. Yet, their accomplishments suggest that they are living lives driven by purpose. This phenomenon is, according to the author's assumptions, inexplicable.

Finally, the author has fallen into the fallacy that evidence that something is desirable is the same as evidence that that thing must therefore exist. Proposing that life without some externally imposed 'meaning' leads inevitably to 'the abyss', the author then says that meaning is necessary to ward off the abyss. This might make meaning desirable, but it is in no way evidence that there is such meaning.

Hang on folks, as the author has promised to put on his 'wooly thinking' cap. Hilarity, and further offenses against logic, are sure to ensue.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
May 7, 2012
 
Reason Personified wrote:
The first of the of the three types of atheist, is the not yet indoctrinated atheist, which consists of mainly the toddlers, infants and newborns, of all groups of people. To a lessor degree this first group contains the children of these same people. This is because it is most often during childhood, that the indoctrinations take place. This is necessary to religions future, after a certain age a child is more likely to the see the ridiculousness of the god concepts.
As of now, no one has figured out how to indoctrinate before birth, and if they ever do, children will be born into whatever religion the mother's anesthesiologist adheres to. This will be of course, irreversible.
The second type of atheist has been indoctrinated into a specific religion, and rejects all god claims, except those pertaining to his or her specific religion. In rejecting the validity of all remaining gods, this theist is in fact, a self made atheist. To no longer be atheist, this adherent of a specific god or gods need only, to accept that all gods are of the same cloth. No one is any less real than all of the others.
The third type of atheist, is much like myself. We have studied and truly learned that what many religions offer, can be boiled down to nothing more than balderdash. The gods are imperfect constructs, and the Abrahamic god, one of the most flawed of these less than godly things, which man has chosen to use as tools against other men. We are the avowed atheist.
that is helpful, although in the last category there are two sorts of avowed atheists, the so called hard atheists who say they know this and can prove it, and the agnostic atheists who do not say they know or can prove it, but still think the notion of a god, God, gods, etc. is not something to believe in).
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
May 7, 2012
 
JustWow wrote:
<quoted text>
And what would this person be called?
One that actually believes all the gods ever dreamed of in all the religions of man are all equally real and equally false.
intelligent, if the person thinks they are equally false. what do you mean by equally real? all can be false and some can be much nastier than others. but remember, you use the term believe, not the term claim to know. I do not claim to know.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
May 7, 2012
 
Amused wrote:
Interesting. First the author constructs a straw man of atheists who reject a "sky god", without proposing or defining any other kind of god that is not such a being, and possibly might not be objectionable to atheists of his supposed "type 1". Even a single example of such a non- sky god deity is missing. Perhaps because the derisive term sky god encompasses all the commonly proposed deities.
As to the second supposed "type" of atheist, the author presents only his "belief" that life has meaning, with utterly no evidence that such 'meaning' exists, or that if it does exist, religion is the only way that such meaning can be found. Psychology is a science, although often grouped with the "soft sciences". I am at a loss to figure out how the peer review process would work when the only evidence in support of a conclusion was the author's pre-existing beliefs. That sort of thing may pass muster in theology, but not in science.
The discussion of the supposed second type of atheist also suffers from an assumption that an amorphous 'spirituality' is the equivalent of 'god', such that denial of the existence of 'god' means denial of all 'spirituality'. This is a false equivalence. Defining "religion" as organizations that promote "spirituality", and not as "organizations that promote a belief in an omniscient, omnipotent being" blurs the distinction between believers in god and various new-age woo beyond recognition.
The author then assumes that "religion", which he defines as some formless spirituality which may or may not include a deity, is the only path to finding meaning in life. The overwhelming majority of members of the National Academy of Science are atheists. Yet, their accomplishments suggest that they are living lives driven by purpose. This phenomenon is, according to the author's assumptions, inexplicable.
Finally, the author has fallen into the fallacy that evidence that something is desirable is the same as evidence that that thing must therefore exist. Proposing that life without some externally imposed 'meaning' leads inevitably to 'the abyss', the author then says that meaning is necessary to ward off the abyss. This might make meaning desirable, but it is in no way evidence that there is such meaning.
Hang on folks, as the author has promised to put on his 'wooly thinking' cap. Hilarity, and further offenses against logic, are sure to ensue.
thanks for the review so we do not have to read the thing. I do not know which type of believer is more annoying - the pretended learned one or the outright stupid one. The stupid ones write easier to read comments, at least. I prefer to read your version of what the article said, with your editorial opinion giving the thing merit to make it worth reading.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
May 7, 2012
 

Judged:

1

JustWow wrote:
<quoted text>
And what would this person be called?
One that actually believes all the gods ever dreamed of in all the religions of man are all equally real and equally false.
"Sybil".

And what you just asked, means that you did not read and understand my post.

If you beleive in all gods, you are not an atheist. If you beleive in some, you are still atheist.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
May 7, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>"Sybil".
And what you just asked, means that you did not read and understand my post.
If you beleive in all gods, you are not an atheist. If you beleive in some, you are still atheist.
Shh, logic hurts the tiny brains and we don't want them to implode contemplating this conundrum.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
May 8, 2012
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Shh, logic hurts the tiny brains and we don't want them to implode contemplating this conundrum.
Lol!

“Knowledge is true opinion”

Since: Mar 07

Chesapeake, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
May 8, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> intelligent, if the person thinks they are equally false. what do you mean by equally real? all can be false and some can be much nastier than others. but remember, you use the term believe, not the term claim to know. I do not claim to know.
My belief is that all of the gods of all of the religions ever dreamed up by man are all completely real to the individual believers but none of them are real to those who do not believe in them (equally real and equally false). Each believer will receive all of the promises of the religion they personally believe in.

“Knowledge is true opinion”

Since: Mar 07

Chesapeake, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
May 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>"Sybil".
And what you just asked, means that you did not read and understand my post.
If you beleive in all gods, you are not an atheist. If you beleive in some, you are still atheist.
I think I did understand.
Not an atheist equals what?
Definitely not a theist (since believing all of them are real negates the idea of following a theology).

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
May 8, 2012
 
JustWow wrote:
<quoted text>
My belief is that all of the gods of all of the religions ever dreamed up by man are all completely real to the individual believers but none of them are real to those who do not believe in them (equally real and equally false). Each believer will receive all of the promises of the religion they personally believe in.
Now that's just lazy. Also an open gateway for mayhem.

“Knowledge is true opinion”

Since: Mar 07

Chesapeake, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
May 8, 2012
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Now that's just lazy. Also an open gateway for mayhem.
Aren't all religions simply lazy?

The adherents of the religion pick the one they believe fits what they want the best and then stop looking for any "truths".

I simply take it one step further by saying there is no real "truth" but rather a whole bunch of partial truths.

“Knowledge is true opinion”

Since: Mar 07

Chesapeake, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
May 8, 2012
 
KittenKoder wrote:
Also an open gateway for mayhem.
How exactly do you think this would lead to mayhem?

“The eye has it...”

Since: Jan 12

Russell's teapot.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
May 8, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

JustWow wrote:
<quoted text>
I think I did understand.
Not an atheist equals what?
Definitely not a theist (since believing all of them are real negates the idea of following a theology).
Henotheism would qualify for that distinction. The henotheist worships only one deity but accepts there are other deities or - may - be other deities as well.

Noun: henotheism
1. The worship of one god of several
WordWeb Pro 6.0

Monolatry or monolatrism would likely fall into that category, too. The monolatrist accepts or recognizes that there are other deities, but , tends to only worship one exclusively.

Noun: monolatry
1. The worship of a single god but without claiming that it is the only god

WordWeb Pro 6.0

Most people are aware that Judaism was polytheistic in it's earliest beginnings. I think Judaism also had periods of henotheism and monolatrism, too, before the final move to monotheism.

The OT/Tanakh has portions that example both of those theistic concepts, and even the ten commandments illustrate there were some vestiges of the other beliefs they'd transitioned through.

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me"

That doesn't sound quite so confident and, "monotheistic", does it?Not to me, anyway, in light of that knowledge.

I also think that Christianity still toys with the concepts in its "triune" beliefs, and that's not surprising. Judaism (as a whole) wasn't completely monotheistic even as late as 200-300 BCE. The old ways die hard.

So, the article this thread is based upon, even though the author is off base in his definitions concerning atheism, is laughable. It's written from the theistic point of view, and that view is you MUST worship a deity. That's really what I imagine the article is or will be slanted towards. Once the other additions are published.

It doesn't matter what the deity is, you just nEEd to worship one. But..., the theist really wants you to worship the RIGHT one -- with them. Because, you know, they do worship a *real* deity, not like those other deities, the fake ones~~.

One of my favorite quotes. I'm not sure who originated it.

"I mean, they really don't know what God wants. They see a cult that worships snakes and laugh at them, but, you know, what if they're right? What if you die and while you're in front of the Pearly Gates, St. Peter looks at you and says "Where's your snake?"

Theists are a hoot. They really are.

Mostly.

“Knowledge is true opinion”

Since: Mar 07

Chesapeake, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
May 8, 2012
 
Nontheist wrote:
<quoted text>
Henotheism would qualify for that distinction. The henotheist worships only one deity but accepts there are other deities or - may - be other deities as well.
Noun: henotheism
1. The worship of one god of several
WordWeb Pro 6.0
Monolatry or monolatrism would likely fall into that category, too. The monolatrist accepts or recognizes that there are other deities, but , tends to only worship one exclusively.
Noun: monolatry
1. The worship of a single god but without claiming that it is the only god
WordWeb Pro 6.0
Thanks

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of37
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••