There's 2 types of Atheists.?

Question

I myself am an Atheist. And i believe there is only two types, do u agree and which one are u ?

1. The Atheists that know (believe) there isn't a god so they don't care about nothing and just go around f*cking people's lifes up and f*cking with everyone's emotions because they know (believe) they is no consequenses to be had.

2. The Atheist who knows(believes) there isn't a god, but yet is good to everyone and respects everyone's views, even though they know(believe) there will be no reward(i.e. heaven, or eternal life.)

Answer 1

In terms of atheism, they're the same type. Their beliefs concerning the existence of gods are identical, so the distinction you're making is about as relevant as saying that there are tall atheists and short atheists. And clearly if you include differences that don't pertain to atheism itself, there are as many types of atheists as there are atheists.

Usually when people divide atheism into types it's between implicit and explicit, or between weak and strong.

Answer 2

Um yeah your type #1 is just sociopath...and a sociopath can be of any religion or belief. That has nothing to do with atheism. So I completely disagree with your classification there because basically what you are asking is if people have a conscience or not....

There is more than one kind of atheist, but nothing like what you described there. Atheists come in two main flavors as well: weak atheists who don't have a belief in a god, and strong (or positive) atheists who believe there are definitely no gods. It's a little more subtle than the split for agnostics. Atheists sometimes recognize a third group as well, Apatheists (apathetic Atheists), who don't believe in god but don't really care about the whole issue.

Beyond these classifications, atheists (and sometimes agnostics and deists) have several significant subsets of beliefs and outlooks on life. A humanist is one who believes in the positive power of humanity to do good in the world. A rationalist believes in the use of reason to solve problems. A naturalist (or materialist) rejects all supernatural claims for the actions of the universe. The nihilist minority believes that all life is pointless, and that none of it will matter after we are dead. Objectivists, followers of the philosophy of author Ayn Rand, state that truth is objective and not subject to the desires of man, reason is the only way to perceive the world, and each person should act in their own self-interest without infringing on the rights of others.

Answer 3

Actually, there are two types of atheists.
1. "Strong atheists". Strong atheists actively disbelieve in the existence of a god or gods. They would say, "There is no God".

2. "Weak atheists". Weak atheists lack belief in the existence of a god or gods. They would say, "I lack belief in a god or gods because there isn't enough evidence for their existence.

I'm a weak atheist, however, I will state that I am pretty sure that certain gods, like the Invisible Pink Unicorn do not exist.

As to your two types that you listed, I guess I would be your second type. I try to be a good person. However, I think that there is a wide range. Some peope are always jerks, some are always nice, and there is a lot of people in-between.

Answer 4

Atheists' morals are not absolute. They do not have a set of moral laws from an absolute God by which right and wrong are judged. But, they do live in societies that have legal systems with a codified set of laws. This would be the closest thing to moral absolutes for atheists. However, since the legal system changes the morals in a society can still change and their morals along with it. At best, these codified morals are "temporary absolutes." In one century abortion is wrong. In another, it is right. So, if we ask if it is or isn't it right, the atheist can only tell us his opinion.

If there is a God, killing the unborn is wrong. If there is no God, then who cares? If it serves the best interest of society and the individual, then kill. This can be likened to something I call, "experimental ethics." In other words, whatever works best is right. Society experiments with ethical behavior to determine which set of rules works best for it. Hopefully, these experiments lead to better and better moral behavior. But, as we see by looking into society, this isn't the case: crime is on the rise.

There are potential dangers in this kind of self-established/experimental ethical system. If a totalitarian political system is instituted and a mandate is issued to kill all dissenters, or Christians, or mentally ill, what is to prevent the atheist from joining forces with the majority system and support the killings? It serves his self-interests, so why not? Morality becomes a standard of convenience, not absolutes.


But, to be fair, just because someone has an absolute ethical system based on the Bible, there is no guarantee that he will not also join forces in doing what is wrong. People are often very inconsistent. But the issue here is the basis of moral beliefs and how they affect behavior. That is why belief systems are so important and absolutes are so necessary. If morals are relative, then behavior will be too. That can be dangerous if everyone starts doing right in his own eyes. A boat adrift without an anchor will eventual crash into the rocks.


The Bible teaches love, patience, and seeking the welfare of others even when it might harm the Christian. In contrast, the atheists' presuppositions must be constantly changing, and subjective and does not demand love, patience, and the welfare of others. Instead, since the great majority of atheists are evolutionists, their morality, like evolution is the product of purely natural and random processes that become self serving.


Basically, the atheist cannot claim any moral absolutes at all. To an atheist, ethics must be variable and evolving. This could be good or bad. But, given human nature being what it is, I'll opt for the moral absolutes -- based on God's word -- and not on the subjective and changing morals that atheism offers.

Answer 5

A similar generalization can be made of believers, too: believers who f*ck things up because they believe there will be particular consequences (like heaven or hell), and believers who act with respect despite their belief in consequences.
As an atheist myself, I'm not sure such generalizations help us really understand events or each other. But still, it's worth asking!

Answer 6

I think there is only one type of athiest. One who does not believe in a higher power of any sort.

I believe, however, there are many types of people.
In your examples, the first would be a sociopath and the second would be more along the lines of healthy.

Answer 7

I've met both kinds of atheists, though the majority fall into category 2.

Answer 8

You have apparently no knowledge of the third and most numerous Atheists. Those who do not believe in god(s) or the supernatural/paranormal and understand the complexities of sentence structure and basic grammatical usage.

Answer 9

I disagree - your Type One atheist sounds more like a religionist who no longer believes and is taking it out on society. A "real" atheist wouldnt act in that fashion.

Answer 10

The two types are common to everybody not just atheists.
There are even some people who are religious who are quite nice.