"Non-theism" - my current identification label, and how I use it, and how it may be both alike and different from some people who identify as atheist

[PoetPhilosopher]

Hi,

I've been reflecting on the labels we use to describe our beliefs and I wanted to see if anyone else resonates with the term "non-theist" rather than "atheist."

For me, identifying as a non-theist is about embracing a simple system - in my case. It's less complex than agnosticism or agnostic atheism can get, as it simply states a lack of belief in gods, and yet, doesn't share all the attributes that are sometimes common with people who identify as atheists (while still sharing some).

However, I'm open to experiences like spiritual awakenings, which I believe don't necessarily require a deity to explain. They're a separate discussion altogether, though. My approach to belief is straightforward and, in some ways, deep down - it acts as a subtle protest against Christianity. But it's not an aggressive stance, but rather a gentle one that actually acknowledges the slim chance of harmony between the two groups in the long run.

In debates, my style differs from some atheists. I've noticed a tendency for atheist vs. theist debates to resemble strategic battles, akin to how Obi-Wan approached his duel with Anakin in the movie Revenge of the Sith. That's not my approach. I prefer a more peaceful and respectful dialogue, focusing on understanding rather than confrontation. There have been times in debate where I've conceded a point, to gain a point elsewhere, because I simply don't care about making my stance look 100% correct.

Adding to my earlier thoughts, another reason I lean towards non-theism as a label is the space it gives me to grow intellectually at my own pace. While I value the closeness with the atheist community and aspire to learn more about logic and enhance my critical thinking skills, I'm cautious of the peer pressure that sometimes comes hanging very closely with groups - I'd rather keep some distance, and yet, also maintain some closeness, too.

Basically, I'm on a journey to become more analytical and thoughtful, but it's important for me to progress in a way that feels natural and unforced. At times, this journey might seem slow, but it's the pace that works best for me right now. It's about personal growth without the rush, and I believe that's perfectly okay.

Someone will probably point out that the "requirements" or lack thereof to be "atheist" are really quite simple when it comes down to it, and I agree, but I also sometimes see a complex baggage that comes with the term, but I feel the same baggage comes with other terms too - Christian, Hindu, etc. Said baggage doesn't always apply and in all cases, but I feel that sometimes, there are social dynamics and expectations which may push things certain directions. And those social dynamics and expectations can even sometimes come with identifying with certain terms.

To put things into more concrete terms, one difference between me and a lot of people who identify as atheists is that I don't care about defending the negative side in debates, not even theological ones. I'm too philosophical not to sometimes take the positive side (even if it's not the full opposite side).

I have done debates before where I took the negative side, but it was often because what I actually favor when it comes to debates - where specific points may end up with a specific Burden of Proof, rather than the whole debate taking a "positive" or "negative" side - may become a bit confusing for some.

And yes, I also acknowledge that atheists are actually a persecuted group - so hopefully I wasn't too harsh in my assessment, and if I was, I hope someone will softly correct me. I see some value in the term "atheist" - but if I stepped into those boots myself, I think it'd just add to the confusion that may already exist

As for why I don't want to identify with agnosticism - to me, from what I've seen, agnosticism seems to internally involve people setting themselves up in their minds as if they are taking an Ethos stance in a atheist/theist paradigm and staying outside of the paradigm while being a third-party observer. It just becomes confusing and overcomplicated for me past surface level. I've talked to both agnostics on RF, and outside of RF, about this. When they described their beliefs, I pictured this in both instances - though I see harder and softer forms of it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

With a nod towards Franz Rosenzweig, I would prefer "not-yet-theist" save for its verbal awkwardness.

I see agnostic as an acknowledgment, atheist as an assertion, and not-yet-theist as an invitation.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Someone will probably point out that the "requirements" or lack thereof to be "atheist" are really quite simple when it comes down to it, and I agree, but I also sometimes see a complex baggage that comes with the term

I'd like to expand a little more on this -

The "baggage" I see with the term atheist sometimes is two-fold, it's:

1. Some theists, and even agnostics, will assume things about people with the label atheist, that are untrue. Due to having a mistaken idea.

2. It becomes confusing when you've got a group where 80% of atheists agree on something logical and act a certain way within the group, then the other 20% don't have their critical thinking hats on, on the contrary - or may not really know how to critically think. In such a group, the dynamics of the conversation may get interesting - I've noticed there's often a tendency for the other atheists to, in my view - temporarily forget that the other 20% are atheists too, or at least ignore them.

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't want to be strongly judged by my critical thinking abilities at this time from within a group. Even if critical thinking is a subject I pursue. As it is, when I look at the situation, I see a lack of clarity on my.part - at least without further clarification, perhaps by talking with other people on their views.

 

[HonestJoe]

If you need several paragraphs to explain a label, what's the point of having the label?

More generally, what's the point of any of these labels at all? When or where would you need to identify your beliefs in this area that you wouldn't be explaining a specific concept or aspect in more detail?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

If you need several paragraphs to explain a label, what's the point of having the label?

More generally, what's the point of any of these labels at all? When or where would you need to identify your beliefs in this area that you wouldn't be explaining a specific concept or aspect in more detail?

I can explain the label in about three sentences if you want. I went to length instead.

As for the second point -

I feel you make some good points. However, the way I see it - a lot of debates are mere sound bytes with the exception of One-on-One debates. So I feel that labels might make more sense if there's a chance you'll talk to someone for 5 minutes, then they may not ever respond back to the thread.

I'm open to not treating a debate as sound bytes, but it's particularly difficult to do in open debates with 10 things going on at once, especially if the whole crowd is doing a push/shove.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I can explain the label in about three sentences if you want. I went to length instead.

To summarize:

"I identify as a non-theist because it represents a lack of belief in gods without the additional attributes sometimes associated, or thought of, with atheism. My stance seeks a respectful dialogue over confrontational debate. This label allows me intellectual growth at my pace, avoiding some of the peer pressure and social dynamics often associated with specific groups."

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Nice. I've become very fond of the term apatheist. Even though I think atheist is a label that also fits me, apatheist gets to the real heart of 'even if there were gods, it wouldn't change how I behave now. I don’t believe in outsourcing moral judgement to third parties, and I detest authoritarianism.' Takes the wind out of the sails of most of those set on convincing me.

 

[Nakosis]

Hi,

I've been reflecting on the labels we use to describe our beliefs and I wanted to see if anyone else resonates with the term "non-theist" rather than "atheist."

For me, identifying as a non-theist is about embracing a simple system - in my case. It's less complex than agnosticism or agnostic atheism can get, as it simply states a lack of belief in gods, and yet, doesn't share all the attributes that are sometimes common with people who identify as atheists (while still sharing some).

However, I'm open to experiences like spiritual awakenings, which I believe don't necessarily require a deity to explain. They're a separate discussion altogether, though. My approach to belief is straightforward and, in some ways, deep down - it acts as a subtle protest against Christianity. But it's not an aggressive stance, but rather a gentle one that actually acknowledges the slim chance of harmony between the two groups in the long run.

In debates, my style differs from some atheists. I've noticed a tendency for atheist vs. theist debates to resemble strategic battles, akin to how Obi-Wan approached his duel with Anakin in the movie Revenge of the Sith. That's not my approach. I prefer a more peaceful and respectful dialogue, focusing on understanding rather than confrontation. There have been times in debate where I've conceded a point, to gain a point elsewhere, because I simply don't care about making my stance look 100% correct.

Adding to my earlier thoughts, another reason I lean towards non-theism as a label is the space it gives me to grow intellectually at my own pace. While I value the closeness with the atheist community and aspire to learn more about logic and enhance my critical thinking skills, I'm cautious of the peer pressure that sometimes comes hanging very closely with groups - I'd rather keep some distance, and yet, also maintain some closeness, too.

Basically, I'm on a journey to become more analytical and thoughtful, but it's important for me to progress in a way that feels natural and unforced. At times, this journey might seem slow, but it's the pace that works best for me right now. It's about personal growth without the rush, and I believe that's perfectly okay.

Someone will probably point out that the "requirements" or lack thereof to be "atheist" are really quite simple when it comes down to it, and I agree, but I also sometimes see a complex baggage that comes with the term, but I feel the same baggage comes with other terms too - Christian, Hindu, etc. Said baggage doesn't always apply and in all cases, but I feel that sometimes, there are social dynamics and expectations which may push things certain directions. And those social dynamics and expectations can even sometimes come with identifying with certain terms.

To put things into more concrete terms, one difference between me and a lot of people who identify as atheists is that I don't care about defending the negative side in debates, not even theological ones. I'm too philosophical not to sometimes take the positive side (even if it's not the full opposite side).

I have done debates before where I took the negative side, but it was often because what I actually favor when it comes to debates - where specific points may end up with a specific Burden of Proof, rather than the whole debate taking a "positive" or "negative" side - may become a bit confusing for some.

And yes, I also acknowledge that atheists are actually a persecuted group - so hopefully I wasn't too harsh in my assessment, and if I was, I hope someone will softly correct me. I see some value in the term "atheist" - but if I stepped into those boots myself, I think it'd just add to the confusion that may already exist

As for why I don't want to identify with agnosticism - to me, from what I've seen, agnosticism seems to internally involve people setting themselves up in their minds as if they are taking an Ethos stance in a atheist/theist paradigm and staying outside of the paradigm while being a third-party observer. It just becomes confusing and overcomplicated for me past surface level. I've talked to both agnostics on RF, and outside of RF, about this. When they described their beliefs, I pictured this in both instances - though I see harder and softer forms of it.

I wouldn't use the term non-theist because it feels like a more aggressive stance.

Atheist, you choose to not to give any validity to any beliefs gods. Neither of their existence nor their non-existence.
Non-theist, seems like you decided to take a stance against gods. Basically the opposite of theist.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

With a nod towards Franz Rosenzweig, I would prefer "not-yet-theist" save for its verbal awkwardness.

I see agnostic as an acknowledgment, atheist as an assertion, and not-yet-theist as an invitation.

Broadly speaking this appears fair and valid to me.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm fine with the OP, but ultimately if I'm conversing with someone, labels become unimportant. They are the quick hit version of description.
Hence, the short version of my beliefs is 'atheist'. The long form is 'agnostic atheist'. Anything longer than that, hopefully we're conversing and talking at a more granular level.

Non-theist is fine, I guess, but you could be a pantheist, panentheist, or even a deist depending on how you define such things. Or an atheist.

Labels are always ham-fisted. If one makes sense to you, use it, but they're only a useful shorthand to talk to others anyway.

 

[HonestJoe]

I can explain the label in about three sentences if you want. I went to length instead.

Not without loosing nuance I expect. You're essentially defining your entire theological worldview. That shouldn't be possible with a single word. I've long said that if someone can describe their worldview with a single word, they've not given it anything like enough thought.

I feel you make some good points. However, the way I see it - a lot of debates are mere sound bytes with the exception of One-on-One debates. So I feel that labels might make more sense if there's a chance you'll talk to someone for 5 minutes, then they may not ever respond back to the thread.

Why do you need labels for any specific debate though? You can express your opinion on the specific topic and answer any responses you get without needing to identify with any generic label (after all, I've done exactly that here). If anything, I find falling back on the labels commonly used here only serves to feed the division and conflict, distracting from the details of the specific topic of discussion.

I think you've subconsciously recognised this in your desire to avoid labels like atheist or agnostic, you've just made the all too common error of assuming the problem can be resolved with just another label (ironically, a major part of the history of religion). I'd suggest you're half way to a (non-theistic) revelation.

 

[McBell]

1. Some theists, and even agnostics, will assume things about people with the label atheist, that are untrue. Due to having a mistaken idea.

People assume things about the label atheist.
Just like people assume things about the label theist.
And every single other label.
It is because people assume.

2. It becomes confusing when you've got a group where 80% of atheists agree on something logical and act a certain way within the group, then the other 20% don't have their critical thinking hats on, on the contrary - or may not really know how to critically think. In such a group, the dynamics of the conversation may get interesting - I've noticed there's often a tendency for the other atheists to, in my view - temporarily forget that the other 20% are atheists too, or at least ignore them.

No idea what your point here is.
I am failing to come up with any real world scenario where atheists can be realistically split up into an 80/20 grouping.

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't want to be strongly judged by my critical thinking abilities at this time from within a group. Even if critical thinking is a subject I pursue. As it is, when I look at the situation, I see a lack of clarity on my.part - at least without further clarification, perhaps by talking with other people on their views.

In all honesty, it is my thought that it does not matter what label you choose for yourself.
You are going to need to further explain what whichever label you choose means to you.
Hopefully your explanation gets past/through the label box those you converse with have already created for the label you chose.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

For me, identifying as a non-theist is about embracing a simple system - in my case. It's less complex than agnosticism or agnostic atheism can get, as it simply states a lack of belief in gods, and yet, doesn't share all the attributes that are sometimes common with people who identify as atheists (while still sharing some).

Out of curiosity, what attribute are sometimes common with people who identify as atheists? Furthermore, would it not have been better to have said "some people"?

It sounds as if you're trying to communicate something like: "I'm a atheist too, just not like them." That's not a simpler system. It's an accommodation to a set of presumed connotations.

Furthermore, to say that your non-theism is "less complex than agnosticism or agnostic atheism can get" strikes me as a remarkable (and disparaging) claim, particularly given that you seem to have simply obfuscated "atheism" with talk of perceived "attributes."

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Labels are always ham-fisted. If one makes sense to you, use it, but they're only a useful shorthand to talk to others anyway.

I understand.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I think you've subconsciously recognised this in your desire to avoid labels like atheist or agnostic, you've just made the all too common error of assuming the problem can be resolved with just another label (ironically, a major part of the history of religion). I'd suggest you're half way to a (non-theistic) revelation.

You're probably right. Thanks for this observation.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Out of curiosity, what attribute are sometimes common with people who identify as atheists? Furthermore, would it not have been better to have said "some people"?

I just woke up. I'm hoping to get back to this question later.

I've thought about it, but it deserves me being fully awake to answer, as I don't want to answer such a question in a ham-fisted manner.

I will say that I've described some of the attributes already. Such as the style of debate I've sometimes seen. Although, I may not have been real clear about it.

I probably should have said "some people", yes.

It sounds as if you're trying to communicate something like: "I'm a atheist too, just not like them." That's not a simpler system. It's an accommodation to a set of presumed connotations.

I understand.

I'll think more about this.

Furthermore, to say that your non-theism is "less complex than agnosticism or agnostic atheism can get" strikes me as a remarkable (and disparaging) claim, particularly given that you seem to have simply obfuscated "atheism" with talk of perceived "attributes."

Actually, when I said this, it kind of had little to do with atheism, and had more to do with agnosticism. I was taking a swipe at agnosticism. Sorry for not explaining this better.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

It sounds as if you're trying to communicate something like: "I'm a atheist too, just not like them." That's not a simpler system. It's an accommodation to a set of presumed connotations.

Okay. I'd say I agree. However-

Just as you may think that it's obfuscation to apply attributes to atheism, I think it's obfuscation to align with a term without realizing whatever baggage comes with the term, and also thinking about the subject yourself.

This also isn't only with the term atheist. There's a lot of baggage that comes with the term, in my opinion... but there's also a lot of baggage that comes with terms like Wiccan. If one identifies as Wiccan, people start thinking about the whole "coven vs. no coven" issue in general.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

But I'll actually concede one point, it's-

When compared to identifying as atheist, identifying as non-theist may not necessarily be simpler.

But I'd still argue, for now, that identifying as non-theist could potentially be simpler than identifying as agnostic.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Furthermore, to say that your non-theism is "less complex than agnosticism or agnostic atheism can get" strikes me as a remarkable (and disparaging) claim, particularly given that you seem to have simply obfuscated "atheism" with talk of perceived "attributes."

Actually, when I said this, it kind of had little to do with atheism, and had more to do with agnosticism. I was taking a swipe at agnosticism. Sorry for not explaining this better.

What do you find complex about agnosticism?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It sounds as if you're trying to communicate something like: "I'm a atheist too, just not like them." That's not a simpler system. It's an accommodation to a set of presumed connotations.

Okay. I'd say I agree. However-

Just as you may think that it's obfuscation to apply attributes to atheism, I think it's obfuscation to align with a term without realizing whatever baggage comes with the term, and also thinking about the subject yourself.

OK, although "it could be misleading" strikes me as more accurate than "it's obfuscation."