Do most Atheists realize that there are different types of atheism?

Question

I am not an atheist but have met very few atheist who specify what kind they are.
example: agnostic, radical, pragmatic/practical.......

Im just asking since there actually is a differece.

One person could have never thought about religion and never will, while the other has been religious half their life but saw no point and stopped believing ect....

I think the lables were created by other atheists to explain their specific conditions under which they don't believe....or something like that.

Answer 1

Si, si, I do, I do.

Weak, strong, implicit, explicit, agnostic (for those who take no position or who lean towards affirming that gods don't exist), ignostics, apatheists, etc.

Answer 2

Agnostic isn't a kind of atheist -- they aren't sure (either because they, personally aren't sure, or because they believe no one can know for sure).

Unlike churches, there aren't denominations of atheists who get together and unpray or something.

If you want to know more specifically what a person believes, you can always ask.

There's no dogma here; atheism means not believing in god; there's no bunch of clubs which we have to choose to join; we just think what we think.

Answer 3

Agnostics are NOT atheists!

Don't lump people together. Atheist ALL agree there is no God or Sky Daddy. Agnostics wait for proof, one way or another.

Answer 4

Honestly, because it seems stupid to try to elaborate on what exactly you don't believe, expecially when, regardless of what you identify yourself as, there is no explicit group that such a title would tie you into. Are there atheist churches? No. So why do we need denominations?

Answer 5

i think of Dawkins is the appropriate. i've got examine numerous of his books and he does a extra appropriate interest of explaining evolution than every person. unquestionably, his interest call has something to do with educating the typical public on evolution. River Out of Eden and The Ancestors' tale, i stumbled on them the two alluring. The God myth, i think of each individual of religion would desire to examine it to ascertain what they're up against. (and that i'm a believer myself, yet i think in getting a great view, a form of perspectives.) Christopher Hitchens' innovations-set is extra political. i've got been analyzing his columns on and stale for years and that i trust him in specific situations and picture he's a entire fool another circumstances. Like maximum political writers he sees his interest no longer in basic terms as being to show and edify yet to get human beings riled up by ability of 'spinning' the information. Sam Harris kind of scares me. His e book, A Letter to a Christian u . s . a . (i think of this is the single) unquestionably dismisses democracy! I enjoyed the chapters approximately faith and how it works for undesirable besides as good, yet then in the direction of the tip of the e book he basically gets somewhat weird and wonderful. All 3 of those adult males have pronounced issues that truly made me end and picture, and that's the appropriate element you are able to say approximately any author. Dawkins is the only one whose innovations-set is in basic terms medical and (i think of) properly balanced. His books on evolution don't get into politics or faith in any respect, yet clarify the thought of course, in a manner that i think of every person would desire to comprehend it, a minimum of extra appropriate than they do now.

Answer 6

What do you call a guy who doesn't believe in any B.S. of any kind ? Make believe is for kids. Fairy tales are for kids. Gods and spooks are for kids.
I'm just a non-believer. Why do some of you have to come up with dozens of labels ?

Answer 7

I'm a I Hate My Boss Atheist today.

Answer 8

Yes.

Answer 9

No are there really? Wow, I never would have guessed, since we're all different and everything, and there is no atheist dogma... thanks for opening my eyes.

Answer 10

I do. I am a blueberry crunch atheist.