5 out of 5 in casa Dinsdale.
I’d include the dog, but I suspect she has a naive canine hope that some benevolent intervenor will someday magically transport food from the table to her dish.
Or have beliefs that do not fit into a religious structure. (Personally, I drift in and out of being accurately described by “non-religious”, and am nowhere even remotely approaching atheism.)
I know a lot of people who say, “I’m not religious, I’m spiritual,” which is partly in response to the connotation of “religion” as “organized religion”, and partly because religion is generally seen as a community matter, and I know a number of people whose faith is intensely and incommunicably personal.
Well, if we’re going to go by the classical definition of atheist, there are something like 2 billion atheists, since in classical times those people who called themselves “Christians” were called “atheists” by others.
The self-identification “Non-religious” may include people with pronounced spiritual beliefs, including a belief in some sort of creator or higher power, who wouldn’t qualify as atheists by any reasonable definition of the term. Then there are the pantheists, who mess up everyone’s categories. However, the “official” definition of “non-religious” is “persons professing no religion, nonbelievers, agnostics, freethinkers, or dereligionized secularists indifferent to all religion”; as the definition is written, putting “atheist” as a separate category from that group is simply absurd.
I saw somewhere that there was approximately 1billion Atheists/Nonreligious persons around the world. I think it was on pbs.org or something like that.
If anything, it shows, that over time, the “Atheist movement”, if you want to call it that, is gaining strength. In this time of scientific and technologic development people are becoming aware of some of the paradoxes that cannot be explained by religion.
I would say the non-religious versus atheist debate boils down to semantics. I think the most commonly accepted definition of an atheist is one who actively believes there is not a god, in as much as that constitues a very definite belief system, I would say that atheists are religious (and as the SDMB can testify, sometimes vehemently so), though many of them would sooner die than admit that their beliefs constitute a religion of any sort. Contrast this with what many commonly associate with non-religious, which is simply the lack of a belief system. If that’s how you look at it, then there is a huge difference between atheists and the non-religious.
However, you could also look at “non-religious” as simply meaning “does not believe in god”. If that’s how you choose to look at it, then atheism is a subset of non-religion, because (belief in !god) is a subset of (!belief in god).
I would say the first definition of “non-religious” is a bit more concrete, and thus aesthetically pleasing, but YMMV.
Jeff
One could also define “Christian” to mean “polytheistic cannibal devil-worshippers”, but many of them would sooner die than admit it.
As to how it was defined in these studies … Who the heck knows? I’ve seen some surveys and they have defined atheist as someone who doesn’t answer “yes” to the item of “do you believe in a personal God who answers prayers?” I’m a theist but I don’t believe in a God who listens to prayers or gives a hoot about any individual person or even humanity.
As to the difference between “non-religious” and “atheist” or “agnostic” even … my take is that “non-religious” implies not really giving a shit one way way or the other. The issue just is unimportant to them. Whereas an atheist has thought about it and cares about his/her conclusion. As a general rule.
We’re not really talking about the “historical” definition of “atheist”, whatever that means. For purposes of categorizing people’s beliefs, we would want to determine how they identify THEMSELVES, not how the Catholic Church may have wanted to portray them, or whatever other “historical” definition you want to try to use.
If asked, I could honestly categorize myself as atheist because I lack belief in gods. I could also categorize myself as non-religious. I’m not sure what you mean by not having convictions “either way”. You either believe in a religion or you don’t. If you do, then you are religious. If you don’t, then you are non-religious.
That may be true, but Buddhists belong to neither the category “atheist” nor the category “non-religious”, so how does that make the case for there being a distinction between the 2 categories?
Oh, please - not this again. No, that’s not the accepted definition. How does one “actively” believe that something does NOT exist? That’s just a silly, inflammatory way of putting it.
Yes, there are some zealous atheists, but they are hardly the majority of those who self-identify as atheist. One could just as easily be zealously non-religious. Atheism is not a religion - deal with it.
I actively believe that there is no Santa Clause. I have no absolute proof that there is no Santa Clause, but all current available evidence leads me to conclude that Santa Claus does not exist. I think that an adult who believes in Santa Claus is a bit goofy.
That is an active belief in the nonexistance of something. Deal with it.
What “it all depends on” is how the surveys asked the question. Like I said at the start: it all depends on how you define “non-believer.” I know a lot of atheists who identify themselves as Jewish or Catholic or whatever. I am a self described theist who does not believe in a personal God who answers prayers. My wife is a self-described atheist who believes in fate and some power that causes things to happen. (!?!)
Apart frome the fact that I would probably admit anything rather than die…
It seems you’re equating conviction with religion. I’m essentially sure there’s no god. In what way is that a “religion”? As far as i’m concerned, a religion must include some sort of supernatural belief (say, that there’s a life after death, or a soul, or a god…), some some of rituals, etc…I don’t practise any kind of atheist ritual, and don’t believe in any kind of supernatural entity. So, what’s your definition of “religion”?
So would you describe your religion as “Anti-Santa-Clausian”? If you understand why that would be ridiculous, then you understand why it’s ridiculous to call atheism a religion.
No, the “active” part of your belief is that adult Santa Claus believers are “goofy”. As for this active belief in not-x, garbage; it reminds me of a Simpsons episode I saw recently:
“Dad, are you licking toads?”
“I’m not not licking toads.”
No, I never said it was a religion. It is an actively held belief, similar to theism in that its central tenet is, ultimately, one that is a postulate. And it is different from the invisible pink unicorn*, because it is an actively held belief, something that an atheist has thought about, considered, and come to a conclusion about. I certainly understand why that conclusion is reached by some, and certainly why many particular God-concepts are rejected, but that doesn’t make it any less of a belief statement as any statement of theism. There is a difference between having no belief (passive) and having a belief that something does not exist (active).
*Who seems to have many worshippers in these types of threads.
I never said you did.
I find those who presume to tell me what I believe to be incredibly annoying. I emphatically disagree with your definition of atheism. A-theism: literally “without belief in gods”. There is no postulate there; simply the lack of god-belief.
Do you believe in the I.P.U.? If not, then did you not think about it, consider it, and come to a conclusion about it? How is that different?
sez you.
Cite, please? The etymology of this term certainly doesn’t support that claim.
No, we were asking what percentage of the world IS atheist – not what percentage CALLS ITSELF atheist. I know a guy who calls himself a vegetarian because he eats “very little meat.” He may call himself a vegetarian, but that doesn’t make him one.
And I was not citing the Catholic church – not once. Just look over my previous post and see for yourself. Rather, I referenced such authoritative works as The Encyclopedia Britannica and The Encylcopedia of Philosophy.
Didn’t look for a cite, but remember reading that in my New Standard Encyclopedia (copyright 1978) and under Atheism it reads:
**The word “atheism” is derived from the Greek and means “without God.” Although now it is considered to refer to those who believe in no god at all, originally it also applied to anyone who did not believe the gods of his society. Thus the early Christians were called atheists because they rejected the Greek and Roman gods. **
JZ
To what end? What is the point of having theists come up with an extremely narrow definition, and then saying “gee, not many of you guys fit my definition; guess there aren’t very many atheists”. And I don’t think your analogy is very appropriate. The analagous situation to a self-proclaimed vegetarian who eats meat would be a self-proclaimed atheist who BELIEVES in God.
Hence my words “or whatever other ‘historical’ definition you want to try to use”. I thought that was pretty clear; I apologize if it wasn’t.
The problem with using so-called “historical” definitions is that it is going to be shaped by whatever force was in power at that particular time in history. For example, do you think it would be appropriate to reference the historic pre-civil war view of “Negroes” in order to learn anything about African Americans?
Well, YES !!
How else will you understand what it means to be an ‘African- Amarican’?
>Latro pressed edit time-23:41:23
>Latro pressed edit time-23:41:24
>Latro pressed edit time-23:41:25
>Latro pressed edit time-23:41:26
>Latro says: AAAaaargh.