Nontheism vs. atheism--a distinction without a difference?

[gottaB]

I am not a theist in a true sense of the word, but I'm uncomfortable calling myself an atheist. Mostly I do not feel a need to reject God or anybody else's belief in God. I cannot be sure that what other people refer to as "God" isn't also meaningful to me. This is not the same attitude as agnosticism, since I firmly believe that God does not exist. Am I just kidding myself? Is there a real difference between atheism and nontheism?

[MelanieArt]

1. I know your frustration, there are so many labels

I insist on calling myself an atheist rather than agnostic because then there's little confusion as to where I stand. When I used to say that I was agnostic, most people thought that meant I somewhat believed in a diety, but was unsure. Or that I was "mad at god" or some ridiculous notion. When I say "I am an atheist" there's no uncertainty as to what I mean. :)

I am completely aware that there is so much we really don't know about the universe, and I have to keep an open mind. So far, I haven't found any evidence for a god-like being. Therefore I have to put its chance of existence up there with the possibility of the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, Mickey Mouse or anything else we could imagine. I'm open minded, but I won't waste my time on anything without evidence. :)

[gottaB]

2. "a god-like being"--there's the rub

I have a kind of respect for people who profess to believe in a "personal" God--I put that in quotes because there are theological arguments based upon its metaphorical meanings, but the people who state that as an article of faith typically mean it in its ordinary sense, and that's the position I'm talking about. They leave little confusion as to where they stand. But my respect is muted because I sense a limit to discussion, and I also value dialogue and openmindness as, among other things, paths towards genuine knowledge. Well, perhaps my view of knowledge is more utilitarian than pragmatic. That would be a flaw.

As I child I was very religious (Christian). As a teenager, I became an athiest and for many years I was comfortable with that position, even to the extent of expressing disdain for the indecisiveness of my agnostic friends. But with age I have become much more relaxed about what other people believe. That's why I prefer the label "nontheist." Maybe it's just cowardly. I'm not sure. I don't feel the need to argue that God doesn't exist. It really doesn't bother me.

For a while I was big on Epicureanism. One thing I took from that was a sense that people labor under all kinds of superstition. I think it's a case of people not knowing how to live well. It's as if they make themselves forget their true potential, which may be a corollary of forgetting about death--not to be Heideggerian, but in a general existential sense that's what I think the problem is.

One could make a case that these various faculties which obscure reality have their genesis outside of the structures of existence, for instance under certain views of evolution one may see them as adaptive traits, or as byproducts of much more determinative faculties, but if that were so I should imagine that the entity that calls itself homo sapiens should have little trouble transcending these little impediments to sanity. Is such transcendence in evidence? Only in select cases, and the transmittal of insights gleaned has been spotty at best. As a whole, humankind remains superstitious.

[Pithlet]

3. It can be confusing.

For discussion purposes on DU, I usually refer to myself as atheist. Strictly speaking, I would be agnostic, because if evidence of God - as unlikely as that that is that it would ever happen - ever presented itself, I would change my mind. But, many people think agnostic means undecided, and that people who declare themselves agnostic are wishy washy in their beliefs. I would not use that term to describe myself. So, it's just easier to call myself an atheist, and I don't think it is all that inaccurate.

Edited to add that atheist and non-theist really mean the same thing. The a-prefix in atheist means non.

[lazarus]

6. actually

as an atheist, if evidence of God every presented itself, I'd change my mind, too.

I just don't think it will happen.

I don't understand why people get so confused on this issue, except that they want to avoid the label "atheist" the way some Dems want to avoid being labelled a "liberal".

It's a simple yes/no: Do you believe in god? If yes, then one is a theist. If no, then one is an atheist. Agnosticism comes into play when one is asked about proof/evidence/etc.

[phantom power]

4. I think what you are saying is that you are a tolerant atheist.

If you firmly believe there is no god, you are by definition an atheist. The fact that you respect other people's belief in god(s) means you are tolerant and open minded.

[slutticus]

5. You should not be uncomfortable!

It all depends on how you view Atheism. Many people split atheists into 2 groups, those who definitely believe that there is no god...and those who simply have no belief one way or the other. At first glance, these concepts seem the same, but I think the second definition is more suited to being Agnostic.

I think you can differentiate between another type of agnostic...one which would say "I definitely believe in something, just not that".

I guess I would classify myself in the "Agnostic Atheist" category (LOL...if that even makes sense) ...because I don't believe in any gods, however I also believe that the existence of god cannot be conclusively proven either way.

[immoderate]

9. Agnostic Atheist does make sense.

I am atheist (literally: without a god) because such notions do not make sense in the light of what I (think I) know about the universe. That is, that no god you can describe makes sense to me.

I am agnostic (literally: without knowledge) because I have no direct knowledge (absolute proof) of the non-existence of god. Where else would you get this except from god himself?

I agree that using the word atheist does evoke an emotional reaction in some that distracts them, and stifles further discourse. So sometimes I moderate my terms (hard for an IMModerate) and say I am not religious, or non-observant, or a free thinker to forestall the emotional reaction of those around me.

In some other forums when I wax atheistic, I get comparisons to to Mao, Stalin, and even Hitler (certainly not an atheist.) You have to remind people that despots believe god is themselves and cannot be atheists.

The most frequent objection I get from believers is, "How can you tell right from wrong?" LOL. I ask them if they think I'm going to kill them. None so far think that I will. Then I say, "Test me," I challenge them to pose a situation where I, an atheist, cannot distinguish right and wrong any better than they can.

--IMM

[progdonkey]

7. I've always thought of Nontheism being a form of Atheism...

I think it's also referred to as Positive and Negative Atheism, but I just think of it in terms of where you put the stress. A theist, or one who has a belief in a god. An a-theist (non-theist), or one who has no belief in a god. And an athe-ist, or one who has a belief in no god.

So, I wouldn't put Nontheism against Atheism, as Nontheism, to me, is a subset of Atheism.

Edit: horrible spelling in subject line

[Tafiti]

8. I just posted this in another thread, but...

...in Dan Barker's "Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist" he discusses this very subject. His view is that some people are uncomfortable with the label "atheist" because it carries a stigma and such negative connotations as to invite automatic indignation from other people. Technically, there is no difference, aside from connotation. But that's what makes a label effective or ineffective. Non-theism definitely carries a softer connotation.

He also discusses the difference between "explicit" and "implicit" atheism, as per the definition of atheism. That is, the difference between the following:

"I believe there is no God."

"I do not believe that there is a God."

I don't think he's just getting wrapped up in semantics here, either. I think it's a legitimate point. He also explains it much better than I am here, but I think you get the point.