I could be entirely off base, but what I would guess here is that part of your defense mechanism to protect some sacred cow woowoo belief you have. I say this because you’re using “non-mainstream” seemingly to mask something supernatural or which there is no evidence for. So then it’s easier for you to say “oh, they’re just skeptics/cynics who can’t handle anything outside their narrow worldview” and your sacred cow belief goes unchallenged.
I think skeptics get unfairly labelled as cynics. Sure, the guy going around telling people “there’s no Santa Claus” isn’t usually the life of the party, but the position is not inherently cynical.
Note that many overtly religious people have no belief in gods. How many so-called Christians actually practice Christian virtues? So any differences in age, educational level, etc. may simply reflect the degree of self-awareness of the person. I grew up in a house in which god was never mentioned. At one point, I was given an assignment that required looking at a bible and we didn’t have one. Still, my parents went to synagogue late in life as a kind of social club.
My kids grew up in the same kind of house (although we do own a bible, a gift from my very devout father-in-law). Two the three married people with no religious belief. The third has a wife who goes to church regularly, although she has not tried to impose her belief on him. She believes (or used to anyway) that deep down my wife and I really believe in god, while I cannot believe that she does.
Incidentally, how does the definition of weak atheist above differ from agnostic?
Well, so? Like this girl, I was raised atheist. I didn’t arrive at my lack of belief because I’m so intelligent or analytical and I wasn’t trying to challenge the status quo. My parents just never did anything religious with me with the result that I find it impossible to believe in a god.
Geez, no wonder some theists find us smug and elitist.
FTR, I have been a “devout” atheist for as long as I remember, and I am a committed skeptic on all matters paranormal. I don’t “poo” on things, I merely wish to see some evidence to back up any claims of the supernatural.
If you are concerned with how many people are actively engaged in promoting such beliefs, I think you will find the age distribution to be bimodal - you have a center among the young, and a center among the old. Many people aged, say 30-50, are too tied up with getting on in their careers, raising their kids, etc, to be involved with it, or even give it much thought. The same applies to any movement attached to an abstract or idealist cause - you get the young, who are not yet saddled down with the demands of the real world, and the old, who have come out the other end of the rat race, and are looking for a way to occupy their time.
If you are concerned with people’s actual beliefs, a large number of people probably ARE agnostic, to be polite about it, and not say apathetic. They may profess Christianity because it’s a path of least resistance, or one with the greatest perceived benefits. There’s a lot of social or political Christians out there who don’t believe any of it for a minute. Hell, when I was a kid, I occasionally was involved with Methodist youth groups because the activities were fun, and there wasn’t any great degree of actual religious practice attached.
I’ve never heard a self-described agnostic claim anything that wasn’t entirely compatible with my atheism and that of every other atheist I’ve known. In my experience, ‘atheist’ and ‘agnostic’ are two different labels for the same position, chosen mainly with regard to aesthetics.
My impression has been that ‘agnostic’ is used by atheists who don’t want to offend people who think ‘atheist’ is a bad word. Or maybe they themselves have been convinced that ‘atheist’ is a bad word.
It’s mostly a matter of personal preference, I would think. I would say that when I tried my “agnostic phase” I took it my agnosticism a little further than that description may suggest. The argument that you cannot possibly know whether god exists or not can be taken just as seriously as you personally like - there’s no real counter argument - except that for me, it was altogether unhelpful which was the main reason that made me decide to give it up - trying to keep an “open mind” just didn’t do anything at all except take up “thought space” (I must say I’ve always had a strong dislike of organized religion - so I never took the idea of a church seriously at all). After that, I spent some time investigating further and I’m now quite satisfied just believing things that are somewhat backed by evidence, regarding the rest as - at best - possibly true and mostly wishful thinking.
As alluded to above, there is the notion of “strong agnosticism”, which says not merely that we don’t know whether or not there is a God (which I guess would be “weak agnosticism”) but that we can’t know, in principle, if there is a God. The “weak atheist” merely says he hasn’t seen anything to convince him yet, leaving open at least the theoretical possibility that something could change his mind. The “strong agnostic” position is that the question can never be decided–burning bushes that aren’t consumed or voices from on high could be hallucinations or Sufficiently Advanced Aliens, but on the other hand you can never by this view disprove God’s existence either.
I’m afraid I’ve been unable to dig up a cite. I heard it in a radio programme a couple of weeks ago. I’ve trawled the broadcasters website and transcripts of the likely programmes, but I can’t find it.
I note, though, that **lungfish[/b's citation was specifically for American atheists and agnostics; the report I heardof probably wouldn’t have been. The US tends to be something of an outlier on a lot of religious demographics, so perhaps in the US atheists tend to lapse into theism over time, rather than the other way around?
I would consider myself to be both an atheist and a skeptic. I am highly skeptical of a great many things simply because they are extremely questionable. As for going out of my way to “dwell and poo on anything non-mainstream”, I don’t dwell or poo on anything. It does however seem that being skeptical of things like astrology and an afterlife is far from being a “mainstream” way of viewing things, seeing as how so many people hold onto such things to comfort or entertain themselves. It does bother me that so many people I know who are intelligent in many ways have a belief in something so irrational, but I wouldn’t say I “dwell” on it. I will let it be known that I’m not interested if someone comes at me with some astrological mumbo jumbo or tries to tell me what herb I should be smelling to cure my headache, but I don’t “poo” on them.
While I’m on the topic, I really don’t like the term “atheist,” it seems unnecessary to me. Seems to me that an “atheist” is just a normal person that doesn’t concern themselves with religion. The word “pilot” generally refers to someone who flies an aircraft, but there isn’t a word for people who don’t fly an aircraft. Does that example work? I’ve never been good with articulation, so I hope this all makes sense. =)
Oh, and sense this thread has gotten pretty off topic, I don’t know where to find the stats you’re looking for, but I’m 29 with a high school diploma.
Agreed. I usually say Im not religious, which avoids me being labeled and keeps my specifics to myself as, afterall, its my business. A lot of atheists, agnostics, and skeptics dont run around labeling themselves. Its not an identity politics thing like being a in religion.
I think part of the problem is credulous people dont understand how often they bring stuff like this up to us rational people. In an average day I must tolerate quite a lot of nonsense and if I just reacted to 10% of it, I would come off as a bitter person.
Lets see in a typical day I’ll hear someone tell me about astrology, a mention of god or two, a mention of some far out quackery like Kevin Trudeu, offhand comments about how scientific eggheads dont know anything, offhand comments that are known logical fallacies, offhand comments that are clearly confirmation bias, debunked media distortions, medically questionably suggestions, conspiracy theories, etc. Id say I’m exposed to at least 25 of these a day. Lets say I react to 3. Im sure I would come off as bitter, but Im just defending my point of view. People dont understand how tolerant most skeptics are. We let a lot slide. A lot.
That said, I dont consider myself a very smart person and have never been the best student in the class. I just have an interest in things and a decent memory and find the skeptical outlook to be the most rational. Im not better than these people, but they should feel ashamed when they tell me Saddam ordered 9/11 or that the world might end in 2012.
