Religious none? What do you call this?

[endlessvoid2018]

Yes, I deem it necessary sometimes to have a label to interact with others, even if that label is "none."

Even further, I see the atheist conclusion as being an answer to the god question, and that's really about it. I feel "agnostic," is a it more open-minded like I may have said earlier. Can't remember. I don't agree with a lot of things that hardcore atheists usually believe on other matters besides the god question.

I am choosing to be a bit more open now, and I won't generally try to box myself in to one particular label beyond non-religious (or non-believer) or agnostic. But in general, I think either one of those is good. I sometimes like to use humanist, but that's a different thing altogether.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Yes, I deem it necessary sometimes to have a label to interact with others, even if that label is "none."

Even further, I see the atheist conclusion as being an answer to the god question, and that's really about it. I feel "agnostic," is a it more open-minded like I may have said earlier. Can't remember. I don't agree with a lot of things that hardcore atheists usually believe on other matters besides the god question.

I am choosing to be a bit more open now, and I won't generally try to box myself in to one particular label beyond non-religious (or non-believer) or agnostic. But in general, I think either one of those is good. I sometimes like to use humanist, but that's a different thing altogether.

OK, I got the label if all labels.

I’m a cosmovisionista (a worldviewist).

That means that I have worldviews.

Which distinguishes me from those who are not cosmovisionistas.

 

[TheSwede]

So after 8 months of giving up my belief in Christianity and coming to a whole slew of different conclusions, I feel like I am at a standstill with what to believe. I don't know what to even tell someone that I am at this point. I claimed Deist first, and then agnostic, then finally agnostic atheist. However, after 5 months or so of claiming to be an atheist, I'm a bit tired, and almost disillusioned. So... where do I go from here? I still don't believe in god, the bible or religion. At least the gods of man-made religions. I don't believe in heaven, or hell but I believe in the possibility of an afterlife in some capacity, that the soul may be a real thing. I'm sure this may contradict my god belief. I'm not saying I believe in an afterlife one way or another, I'm just simply saying I don't know.

To whether there is any kind of greater power to the universe, an all powerful creator, or anything of that sort, I would say I am completely agnostic to. I don't really like the atheist title, even if I am one. I had a conversation with someone actually recently who told me the same thing. I actually felt the most at peace when I considered myself "Agnostic," as I treated the situation of religion and existence of god that I don't have knowledge that they exist, so by that notion, I didn't sway one way or another whether I believed or not, and went about my life treating it as they didn't exist, assuming that no divine spectacle was going to happen to persuade me otherwise.

I'm also a believer in Humanism, so I associate with that quite a bit. I think at this point, I may just be under the "none," category without a title. I'm kind of tired of putting myself in a box, as I feel no matter what I do, it makes me doubt and makes me more dogmatic. I'm also very interested in the different concepts of Pantheism/Pandeism, etc. Any thoughts?

Sounds to me like you actually have figured it out. Others turn to organized religions because they don't know what they believe, you do.

Don't feel bad about not having a definite label or if it doesn't always make sense (Buddhism have some struggles with the same question as you concerning the soul/atman).

 

[metis]

Sounds to me like you actually have figured it out. Others turn to organized religions because they don't know what they believe, you do.

Don't feel bad about not having a definite label or if it doesn't always make sense (Buddhism have some struggles with the same question as you concerning the soul/atman).

I just noted your presence here at RF, so let me say "Welcome!".

BTW, I am part Swede and always was closest to that side of my family. When I did the 23 and Me search, I was 95% northern and western European.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Others turn to organized religions because they don't know what they believe, you do.

I suspect that they are very much a minority and over-represented in the more novel religions. And, yes:

• this is no more than an off-handed suspicion, and
• the term "novel religion" is more than a little problematic.

I also suspect that most folk who "turn to organized religions" are looking for a sense of place.

 

[☆Dreamwind☆]

Isn't it basically just another term for agnostic?

 

[endlessvoid2018]

Isn't it basically just another term for agnostic?

What, non-religious or atheist?
The atheist vs. agnostic debate is one that is very tiresome to me, but they are basically technically two different things. But they aren't mutually exclusive. I won't say anything else, because a million others will jump in to argue about it.

And yes, I basically know what I believe/don't believe. This is also a pretty good summary of where I am at right now, found this recently;
"Some people don't consider agnosticism to be a definitive answer. They aren't comfortable being atheist because they either believe it requires impossible knowledge; knowledge that gods don't exist, rather than just disbelief, or because the word atheist has a negative connotation to it, such as immoral or communist. So they choose rather to describe themselves as agnostic."

I also figured that this is one of the problems that I have encountered with the atheist label. Also, I make no assumptions, but a lot of people who are atheists are also materialists, which I ultimately don't believe in, at least when used in a specific manner. I don't think we can know that our material bodies and matter is all there is to the universe, and that after we die, that's it. We're dead. I'm not comfortable with that notion, as nobody has the answer to this one way or another. Well, accept dead people. Lol. I'm not saying I believe one way or another in an afterlife, a soul, or a spiritual existence in general, I'm just arguing from a perspective that it isn't possible to know in my opinion, and to suggest one way or another would be somewhat arrogant if you ask me. All we really have is speculation.

 

[☆Dreamwind☆]

I know that already. I'm just remarking on it.

Religious None is kind of an awkward, clunky term now that I think on it. I don't get the modern day penchant for trying to give the most awkward, clunky names to things that already have names?

If they say they believe in something, but don't see it as definable or aren't sure what it is, that's already got a term. Agnostic.

They don't have to attend a service in an organized religion for a variety of reasons to claim a faith. They just have to practice it.

If they don't believe that there's any divine power and that religions are false, it's called atheist.

 

[endlessvoid2018]

If they don't believe that there's any divine power and that religions are false, it's called atheist.

Who can assume, or even know, that there isn't a higher power in the universe, though? And also, what if they were undefined? What would make them divine, and how would we even know? I don't think if there was a god, higher power, supreme being, etc, that they could be clearly defined. I don't think it's a question as humans that we can even answer.

These are the kind of questions I summarize all the time, and why sometimes I feel uncomfortable claiming the atheist title. Most atheists seem to be quite sure that there isn't anything else to the universe other than what we already know, and can be proven. I'm not entirely sure one way or another.

"Non-theist," when used as an umbrella term would also be a good "label," for me in most technical senses. However, most people would probably just assume atheist.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Yes, I deem it necessary sometimes to have a label to interact with others, even if that label is "none."

Even further, I see the atheist conclusion as being an answer to the god question, and that's really about it. I feel "agnostic," is a it more open-minded like I may have said earlier. Can't remember. I don't agree with a lot of things that hardcore atheists usually believe on other matters besides the god question.

I am choosing to be a bit more open now, and I won't generally try to box myself in to one particular label beyond non-religious (or non-believer) or agnostic. But in general, I think either one of those is good. I sometimes like to use humanist, but that's a different thing altogether.

To me, as a believer, "agnostic" describes a positive condition. I would even say, in many cases, a beautiful and blessed condition.
So I congratulate you for that.

We believers should also consider ourselves "agnostic" in some way, as everything we think we know, is still light-years away from the truth as God knows it.
After participating in unending debates on all kind of doctrines (especially those about the nature of God, Christ, the soul, or the world to come) I've concluded that thinking that we really know what we know is contrary to the purpose of religion.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

The atheist vs. agnostic debate is one that is very tiresome to me, but they are basically technically two different things. But they aren't mutually exclusive. I won't say anything else, because a million others will jump in to argue about it.

I liked something that I read once from Bertrand Russell.

Whether he calls himself an atheist or an agnostic depended on his audience.

When speaking to a lay audience, he calls himself an atheist, but when speaking to an audience of philosophers, he calls himself an agnostic,

Presumably because philosophers are more picky about how strongly one must believe in the non-existence of God than the average person on the street is, so it’s about his perception of his audience.

If he tells somebody on the street that he’s 99.999% sure that there is no God, most folks would find his claiming to be agnostic as being unnecessarily pedantic.