fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2901 ]

[ SECRET POST #2901 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2901 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[Legally Blonde]

__________________________________________________

03.

[Mikey Way, My Chemical Romance]

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05. [ SPOILERS for American Horror Story: Murder House (season 1) ]

__________________________________________________

06. [ SPOILERS for Into the Woods ]

__________________________________________________

07. [ WARNING for non-con/rape ]

__________________________________________________

08. [ WARNING for non-con/rape ]

__________________________________________________

09. [ WARNING for genocide, etc ]

__________________________________________________

10. [ WARNING for incest ]

__________________________________________________

11. [ WARNING for abuse ]

[Begin Again]

__________________________________________________

12. [ WARNING for suicide ]

[Starsky and Hutch]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #414.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

To me it means: someone who acknowledges that there is no way to either prove or disprove the existence of a deity or deities, but who does not actively believe in or worship in any of them.

DA

So... you're agnostic? I'm still confused why you tag on the atheist part. I mean, obviously you can define your beliefs however you want, it just doesn't make sense to me.

I've found that "true" agnostics, or people who label themselves as such, tend to be more equally open to both options.

I basically operate under the assumption there are no gods and no afterlife. If you'd ask me if I believe in God, I'd say no.

This is going way off topic but, I rather think if you don't believe in gods or supernatural stuff then you're an atheist. Atheist doesn't have to mean vehemently anti-god, it just means the faith isn't there. I'd think agnostic would imply a bit more wavering about the topic.

I'm not calling this chart nonsensical, but I think it's trying to apply too much extra meaning to words. If you don't have faith in a god, you're an atheist. Sure, people can be more vehement about it than others. But I don't think acknowledging with reasonable certainty that science hasn't implied any existence of a god and you have no more reason to suspect the existence of a god than you do fairies makes you on the same spectrum as a hardcore theist.

But I don't think acknowledging with reasonable certainty that science hasn't implied any existence of a god

There's a difference between "science hasn't found any evidence for god, so it's currently reasonable to hypothesize there isn't one, but that could be proven wrong at some point" and "science hasn't found any evidence for god and never will because humankind comprehends the entire scope of the universe". The latter is what the picture is comparing with with hardcore theists. The former would fall in line with agnostic atheists, I think.

Yeah but... I rather think that by saying "I don't believe in god" would imply the former, but perhaps not with the rather watering down of "well we don't know FOR SURE" because of course we know nothing for sure, but that doesn't mean acceptance of the possibility of god deserves a place above acceptance of the possibility of absolutely anything, including Santa or demonic possession, etc.

I just find it a bit tiresome that people feel the need to qualify their lack of belief in a god. Do we have to qualify absolutely everything?

And I still can't see a comparison between strong disbelief in god and strong belief in god. Only one side is making an assertion, one that relies on supernatural or powers that we are incapable of observing or testing. I think it's just an issue of language. Again, sure, anything is possible but I think it's fine to be confident that you don't buy a particular proposal of some supernatural entity and just say "atheist" without having to making a show of taking a step back and vocalizing that we don't know for sure.

That's a very reasonable way to think. Unfortunately, I've witnessed or engaged in far too many discussions with self-proclaimed atheists who proclaim with 100% certainty that modern science has determined every aspect of reality there is to determine (because they don't actually understand how science works). Those experiences make me understand the need to have terms to separate the crazy from the sensible, just for clarity's sake.

And I still can't see a comparison between strong disbelief in god and strong belief in god. Only one side is making an assertion, one that relies on supernatural or powers that we are incapable of observing or testing.

What you seem, IMO, to be doing here is conflating "belief in god" with "asserting that god must exist", while simultaneously failing to conflate "disbelief in god" with "asserting that god cannot exist". People can believe without making assertions; people can disbelieve without making assertions. The infographic gives categories to those sorts of people to separate them from absolutists.

Tangential to your point, but I had an informal internship once under someone who always clarified his "I don't believe in god" as being closer to the latter and defended/argued his position against those who said "I don't either, but we don't know for sure". He didn't actually think humanity had, at that point, understood everything, or even that it necessarily ever would. His argument, roughly, was that as we have understood more of the world, we have also consistently, progressively refuted more of the concept of god(s); and that was enough to extrapolate with absolute certainty that there are none.

Also, I read this as less of a comparison chart (though reuse of body language doesn't help), and more of a characteristics chart, if that makes sense.

For general purposes, I'll probably all myself atheist. Unless I'm discussing religion, which really I don't often do.

I used to call myself agnostic for years, but then that didn't sit right. The I called myself an atheist for years, but somehow managed to find myself llumped together with the crowd that was like "huurrr durrr, stupid sheeple and their child-like brains for believing in God," and yeah, that's not me either. I will speak out against religious fanaticism or beliefs that are harmful to others - but I don't believe in demeaning people for having personal beliefs.

Unfortunately, I think with any group, there will be people who lump you in with the asshole extremists of those groups. I didn't identify as a feminist for years because the majority of my experience to that point had been with the TERFs and the type that would tell me that because I wore skirts, I was contributing to patriarchal oppression of women (yes, really, I had someone tell me this, people keep accusing me of making it up, and I wish that was the case). So, I didn't want to be associated with that. Then I got introduced to intersectional feminism and realized that was something I could get behind (of course, now if I say that, people assume I'm an SJW... can't win, I swear).

But, it's really true of any group. Polyamorous -- I've had people assume I'm Mormon and try to "rescue" me from an abusive life of polygamy. Pagan -- between the idiots telling me I'm going to hell and the idiots on the internet who mock paganism or insist we're all culturally appropriative assholes (I don't even worship any particular deity, ffs, pagan is just the best term for someone who practices magic and does Tarot and shit -- and the only reason I'm mentioning this is because it's the next day and less likely for someone to come a-mocking). Kinky -- OMG you must be abusive like Christian Grey! I could go on.

I mean, I understand not wanting to be lumped in, really. And please don't take this as me saying that you must call yourself an atheist, because, like I said above, I didn't call myself a feminist for years because I just did not have the spoons to deal with the BS. I just find that there are assholes out there that are more than willing to make fun of you or think you're a jerk because there's jerks in your *insert XYZ group*.

In short: People are assholes.

The problem I have with this is that, although it would be a logical standard to adopt, it doesn't match the situation as it actually exists - in everyday language, people still use the words in all kinds of ways that lack this conceptual clarity. There is an extremely meaningful sense in which those meanings just aren't what those words mean.

So it's like it's trying to smuggle in a very specific framework without acknowledging that it's trying to do so. And not just a linguistic framework, either, but also a more general framework for how we talk about god.

While I get your point, I do think that definitions and meanings...sort of shift? I feel like, back when I first started identifying as an atheist it had different connotations, if that makes sense? It was just people not believing in something/not practicing religion - and now, over the years there's been a very strong buildup of "internet atheism" so to speak that has bred a lot of zealots of their own right, and now it's more people who basically believe that they are the guardians of the truth who think everyone with a belief system should just grow up. I'm painting two extremes here, of course, but I really did see the definition of the word shift over the year in that sense.

So, I don't think it's necessarily bad to shift to another system of how we discuss belief systems, especially in a society where those become more varied.

That's fair!

I guess my problem is that it seems like it's less a natural shift in how the words are used, and more a conscious attempt to get everyone to start using them a specific way, but I guess I'm also kind of being a pedant here.

I think there is a degree of flexibility that this framework misses out on, in terms of having ways to talk about belief and knowledge in somewhat more nuanced ways, but it's hard to pinpoint a precise example anyway.

To me it's sort of...theoretical, anyway? I can count the number of times I actually called myself "agnostic atheist" in real life on one hand, and it was always in the context of religion actually being discussed. Like with most people who aren't that passionate about religion: it just doesn't come up that much.

I guess I'm just passionate about pedantry.

Actually, given that I'm both a definite atheist and moderately agnostic, I talk and read about religion a surprising amount. I just think it's a really interesting thing to think about, and I find the theoretical systems around it absolutely fascinating. Which, obviously, is very connected to this discussion re: words.

That's an awesome visual representation. (I'm also an agnostic atheist, and people are surprisingly confused about that.)

There's several, but I always liked this one :)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #2901 ]

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Here's a visual representation...

Re: Here's a visual representation...

Re: Here's a visual representation...

Re: Here's a visual representation...

Re: Here's a visual representation...

Re: Here's a visual representation...

Re: Here's a visual representation...

Re: Here's a visual representation...

Re: Here's a visual representation...

Re: Here's a visual representation...

Re: Here's a visual representation...

Re: Here's a visual representation...

Re: Here's a visual representation...

Re: Here's a visual representation...

Re: Here's a visual representation...