I think “atheist” carries the connotations of being irreligeous, not just not believing in any gods. So some people may not believe in any gods, but maybe they do have some kind of spirituality, or believe in ghosts or something. Buddhism as a religion doesn’t mandate God-belief, though some schools do interact with devas. I’m unsure if any other religions don’t require gods to work, but even if they exist, I imagine they and Buddhists, despite not believing in any gods, will be very hesitant to describe themselves as “atheist.”
According to the same research, 1% of US adults are Buddhist, and they fall in a separate cathegory.
All the polls are weird, and very much depending on how you ask the question and how you slice the data.
But you’re right, the word atheist carries some baggage in a christian nationalist country, but that was kind of almost my point. So many people are afraid of the word atheist, but are “not religious, don’t believe in any gods, don’t follow any practices”, which is, actual textbook definition of the word.
i’d say you can be atheist and believe in ghosts/spirits, that’s pretty different from divine beings
the core thing about divinity is power, power to do things or power to have done things in the past or future. spirits and ghosts generally have power comparable to living people, so the lack of obvious evidence for their existence isn’t anywhere near as big of an issue as with deities capable of altering the fabric of reality.
it’s not that incongrous that we’d fail to notice things that can barely interact with us, but an explicitly omnipotent and omniscient god? they can damn well write “hey ho here i am!” in the clouds.
I don’t disagree; that was never my point. My point is the term “atheist” carries a lot of baggage, that might make people not want to associate with it for many reasons that are unrelated to what the word actually means. Especially in the West where the term is severely maligned.
I think “atheist” carries the connotations of being irreligeous, not just not believing in any gods. So some people may not believe in any gods, but maybe they do have some kind of spirituality, or believe in ghosts or something. Buddhism as a religion doesn’t mandate God-belief, though some schools do interact with devas. I’m unsure if any other religions don’t require gods to work, but even if they exist, I imagine they and Buddhists, despite not believing in any gods, will be very hesitant to describe themselves as “atheist.”
According to the same research, 1% of US adults are Buddhist, and they fall in a separate cathegory.
All the polls are weird, and very much depending on how you ask the question and how you slice the data.
But you’re right, the word atheist carries some baggage in a christian nationalist country, but that was kind of almost my point. So many people are afraid of the word atheist, but are “not religious, don’t believe in any gods, don’t follow any practices”, which is, actual textbook definition of the word.
i’d say you can be atheist and believe in ghosts/spirits, that’s pretty different from divine beings
the core thing about divinity is power, power to do things or power to have done things in the past or future. spirits and ghosts generally have power comparable to living people, so the lack of obvious evidence for their existence isn’t anywhere near as big of an issue as with deities capable of altering the fabric of reality.
it’s not that incongrous that we’d fail to notice things that can barely interact with us, but an explicitly omnipotent and omniscient god? they can damn well write “hey ho here i am!” in the clouds.
I don’t disagree; that was never my point. My point is the term “atheist” carries a lot of baggage, that might make people not want to associate with it for many reasons that are unrelated to what the word actually means. Especially in the West where the term is severely maligned.