truthie

So far, IMO, it seems that Europeans have a different way of categorizing and defining atheism.

From a BBC web page.

Atheism is not a belief. Atheism is the absence of belief in God.
*Atheists are people who do not believe in God or other spiritual beings. (I have found this sort of definition in European web sites so many times.)


Atheism a la U.S. : lack of belief/disbelief in god(s). Period.

Types of Atheism according to the BBC.

Humanism
This philosophy of life understands the world without using any supernatural ideas.

Secularism
An atheist philosophy that emphasises that no-one should be disadvantaged for not having a religious faith.

Rationalism
An approach to life based on reason and evidence.

Buddhism
A way of living based on the teachings of Siddartha Gautama.

Humanistic Judaism
A form of Judaism which does without God.

Christian Non-realism
A form of Christianity which does without an external God.

Postmodernism
A view of religion without God, and without any absolute values.

Unitarianism Universalism
A religion of individual belief, most of whose members adopt a non-realist position and focus on humankind as the source of religious authority.

Interesting...

Another web site that caught my attention. The religion of Brianism.
From www.brianism.org

This non-supernatural religion started as a mock-religion, but apparently now, it is real. Has anyone heard about Brianists?

More info about Brianism from Wikipedia.



T.

Heathen Dawn

Brianism? A “religion-substitute based upon the writings and sayings of Brian the cyber-prophet”? Is this some kind of Discordian or SubGenius joke?

Or maybe it’s like Naturalistic Pantheism? Cool. Naturalistic pantheism was my religion before I found Wicca.

DMB

Does this have anything to do with Monty Python?

Heathen Dawn

Their FAQ says no:

Toto

From the FAQ:

Heathen Dawn

Hmmm ... x-post!

Agnostic Theist

Secularism
An atheist philosophy that emphasises that no-one should be disadvantaged for not having a religious faith.

So what do you call people who aren't atheist but do believe no-one should be disadvantaged for not having a religious faith?

seebs

"Polite."

Anitra

I like the BBC's list, but I am still rather betwixt and between definitions myself.

Definitions are "templates." They give you a starting point for understanding someone new, but in order to really find out what that person believes, you have to ask that person. People who have given the most thought to what they believe are going to be the least categorizable.

I am humanist in ethics. I consider every human being equally valuable. We all need each other. Millions of years ago, however long ago it was that we became social animals, we found that we individually survive better when we group together and help each other out. Groups are stronger that do not "weed out the weak" or the nonconformist, but find gifts and capabilities within every individual and make a way for everyone to contribute and be valued and supported. No disagreements about ideas, values or behavior are more important than those basic human rights and social bonds.

I am liberalist and a freethinker. I consider each individual to be individually responsible for our own ideas, values, goals, and behavior. We all speak for ourselves and for ourselves only. All that anyone can say is "This is what I perceive; This is what I think; This is what I value; This is what I want; This is what I will do." We all live in a common reality and have much the same emotional, cognitive, and physiological structure. When we make a good-faith effort to understand and to be understood, to consider all interests involved, the actions we come up with are the most informed and beneficial that they can be.

I am an existentialist. I do not think that there was any original Cause or Plan to the universe. All order is emergent. We make our own lives out of what we are given by chance. Each of us generates our own meaning and purpose. Love, hope, and faith come from within. There is nothing Out There to have faith in; faith is our own commitment to what we hope for.

I am a realist. We all live in the same common reality; we all relate directly to reality; we all have equal standing in relation to reality. Reality doesn't treat any of us special. Gravity operates the same way for me as it does for you. Reality is whatever it is no matter what any of us thinks of it. We can all keep perceiving and understanding more of reality, and none of us will ever perceive and understand it completely and perfectly. We all have a model of reality inside our heads, but that image of reality is not the same thing as reality-as-it-is. If God does exist, God exists in reality, is the same for all of us, doesn't treat any of us special. God is whatever God is, no matter what any of us thinks of God. We can all relate to God, but God is not our perceptions and concepts. We all have whatever personal image of God seems most credible and useful to us, but that image is not God-as-God-is.

I am both a realist and a nonrealist. I posit that there is something Divine there to apprehend. I do not, however, ascribe reality to any of our human apprehensions of the Divine. There is a real God, but my image of God is not real. The Divine speaks for itself, and relates directly and uniquely to each of us. We can all compare notes, usefully, but none of us can speak for the Divine. Nothing written by a human being is the Word of God. We can all say, "This is how I perceive God." None of us can say, "This is what God is." I am an anti-evangelist. To tell each other, "This is what I feel, this is what I relate to" is valid and necessary, becuase our own understanding grows by expressing it, and we learn from each other because we all live in the same reality. But to attempt to tell another, "This is what God is and this is what God says" is to impose one's finite humanity between another human and the Divine.

I am a panentheist. The theological system that most appeals to me is process theology, which values growth over static perfection, and considers God both affected by the universe and affecting the universe, rather than transcendent and omnipotent. For myself, the image that works best is of God's relation to the universe being like my relation to my body. "I" am not a separate entity from my body. "I" am a phenomenon generated at a certain level of organic complexity, when the biological system that is a human body becomes to some extent self-aware and self-directed. I am my body, but I am more than the sum of my physical parts. God is the universe, but is more than the sum of the universe's physical parts. God is not supernatural, any more than "I" am supernatural. God exists within the material universe, just as I do, and is subject to the same order that I am. God cares for me like I care for any cell in my body, but does not micromanage my existence any more than I micromanage my cells. God does not bestow eternal life upon me because God loves me and I am a part of God any more than I bestow eternal life on one of my body cells because I love it and it is a part of me. The fact that my life is finite and that both good things and bad things can happen to me in life does not mean that God doesn't care for me any more than the fact that one of my body cells is finite and sometimes runs into a really luscious molecule of nutrition or sometimes runs into a ravening bacteria means that I don't care for it. There is an organic level of "communication" between my "self" and all parts of my body; a sense of appreciation and belonging, a love; but my cells and I do not have extended philosophical conversations. I feel a sense of relationship with God, a love, but I do not receive or expect "answers" or "directions."

I am a Christian. Humans are animals with aspirations. We have a biological heritage that is at times at odds with the vision of life and society we develop out of our reason and imagination. We are always capable of imagining better than what currently exists. For many of us, this creates a perpetual feeling of anxiety and guilt. As I see it, a great deal of human ritual and religion is developed to reconcile that internal conflict between what we are and what we want to be. The Christian imagery of Grace is just one of them. It is the one I grew up with, that comes most naturally to me. God's unconditional love makes it possible for me to be imperfect and still strive toward ideals. Not everyone needs this imagery of Grace to be able to accept being imperfect and still strive for improvement. Other imagery works better for some. The Christian imagery works for me, and therefore I identify myself as Christian.

I consider each individual to be responsible for how they themselves relate to the universe, however, and I find each individual to have their own unique variant of worldview. I consider us all heretics. Some of us are just honest heretics, who take responsibility for thinking for ourselves and try to do the best job of it we can. I do not consider it either necessary or valuable to have group creeds. People who think for themselves can work together as a group, but whenever individuals turn their intellectual or ethical decisions over to a group it all goes to hell in a handbasket, because groups do not have brains or conscience, only individuals do. I advocate freethinking rather than trying to write a new religion that all can subscribe to.

truthie

Interesting, that is the sort of response that people thought of Wicca and other new religions when they came into view.

Why are you always so eager to say this over and over again? It is as if you have discovered America.

T.