Types of Atheism

I think the same could be said of theism. You've inspired me to attempt a similar classification. Of course, this has been done before, based on a variety of criteria: number of gods, degree of their involvement in human affairs, etc. The following classification deals with the extent to which the deity is personal:

Type I. The Dude(s) in the Sky: Historically, and even at the present time, this is by far the most common perception. God is a person, something like ourselves, but far more powerful--often considered omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc. (S)he watches over us constantly, and can be called on to intercede if our loved one has cancer, our football team is losing, etc. Indeed, this deity is too often conceptualized as something like Santa, complete with beard, who "knows when we've been sleeping, knows when we're awake, knows when we've been bad or good..." but some theists avoid this kind of anthropomorphism, while reatining a faith in some sort of higher intelligence. I'd put the Intelligent Designer of the ID movement in this category. This is the kind of deity that zombiewolf probably had in mind in the previous post.

Type II. The Force (Oversoul, Tao, Absolute, Presence, Something Big Out There, etc.): This deity is also powerful but impersonal. Believers who understand its ways may be able to tap into it and harness its energies, or at least lead more meaningful, satisfying, or less conflicted lives by conforming to its requirements. I'd include pantheism ,not to be confused with panentheism, in this category. Panentheism, which I favor, may overlap the borders of Types I and II. Do we need a new category?

Type III. The Ground of Being (Synthesis of Human Idealism, etc) This God, a favorite of seminarians and liberal Protestant intellectuals, is an abstraction, concept or human construct. Atheists and traditional Christians alike find this concept particualrly annoying, since it seems like a deceptive ploy, in the spirit of "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus." (Santa is real, the Christmas Spirit). But there are things to be said for it. For example, "Life devoted only to life is animal, without any real human value...Those who best promote life do not have life for their purpose. They aim rather at what seems like a gradual incarnation, a bringing into our human edistence of something eternal, someting that appears to imagination to live in a heaven more remote from strife and failure and the devouring jaws of Time." That was said by an atheist/agnostic, Bertrand Russell.

My own concept is an illusive combination of all three--closer to Type II than the others, but with a definite panentheist slant at the Type I/Type II margins.

Is this typology useful? If it is, I think it may be to remind us of the variety among different concepts of the same term, and that, as Freaker put it, "it does a disservice to use one word in describing them all."

 

I personally find these classifications quite useful.

The other comments are quite rude. Apparently if you don't believe (or disbelieve) as they do, you are an asshole. Reverse discrimination?



ps... I especially like the Dudes in the Sky label...