An article recently appeard in Psychology Today regarding two types of atheists: dogmatic vs nondogmatic atheists.  It evoked many responses from our members in a recent discussion before the new website was ready, so I'd like to excerpt various comments.  I'll refer to a person's first name as I reference the various comments.

Bob said, "I got into Andre' Compte-Sponville's book The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality back in 2007. It has influenced the foundation of my Ethical Humanism philosophy. I also found Chris Hedges book When Atheism Becomes Religion presented similar thinking: "Religious thought is a guide to morality. It points humans toward inquiry. It seeks to unfetter the mind from prejudices that blunt reflection and self criticism. It is when we face the intractable nature of our being that we begin to build a viable system of ethics."

Gretchen also commented, "I just can't get past the 'fact' that the idea of god/gods is a creation of human mentality, and should consequently not be given the status of possible truth, without any empirical evidence.  My tolerance for peoples' right to believe as they wish has diminished with my comprehension of all the ills that religion continues to bring to the world."

Hugh stated, "This is the kind of nice, nice apologetics I read once in awhile.  Despite the fact that no god has been shown to exist since the advent of human life and the concept itself is replete with contradictions some people want to keep that slight window of hope open that there just might be something to it.  Sure, one doesn't have to get arrogant but it's hard to be tolerant of absurdity especially with well educated types who like to throw out the canard  "well we really can't be 100% percent sure that there is no god so how can you say there isn't?  There is such a thing as probability and scientists (as well as ourselves) use it all the time to make factual decisions.  Of course, show me a bonafide miracle and other evidence and I've got to reconsider or change my facts but until then I'll stick with the reality of experience and consider it a fact that a god does not exist."

Betty replied, "I wonder if the "problem" is not whether there is a god, or not, whether the universe is more understandable by believing in science or a supreme being, or even whether we believe in religion  or humanism, but what our understanding is of the problems humans face, every day, since the beginning of time. The problem is "us".  How do we take care of our needs, deal with our sorrow and loses, and the needs of others, some family, friends, and community, and strangers."

James commented, "I've long maintained that the only reason there is so much trepidation about the meaning of the word "atheist" is that in our culture we privilege religion, and so anything questioning or rejecting it is suspect. Instead of complicating matters by fashioning some definition of atheism that reassures by signaling non-dogmatism, I think we should keep things simple. Whether one is dogmatic has nothing to do with whether one is a theist, atheist or agnostic. There are lots of open-minded and closed-minded people in all three categories.  A theist is someone who believes that there is a god.  An atheist is someone who believes that there is not a god.  An agnostic is someone who does not believe that there is a god and does not believe that there is not a god."

So, I ask those of you reading this post, where do you fit into this discussion?