Can I be an atheist, but also consider worth in experiences that I personally have, but cannot completely describe or explain? Can I justify, as an atheist, activily seeking these experiences?
So atheism is a rejection only of the personal god? Its not a rejection of religion in a more general sense?
What do we call someone who rejects religion as a good thing in general then?
Maybe this all hinges on the question “what is religion?”
Can we, maybe, begin to talk of a religion that is acceptable to atheists?
Ok. But if you ask an atheist there religious views, some would say “I’m an atheist” and others would explain there views. Would this be the difference between strong and weak atheism?
What term would best describe someone who believes that science is capable of describing the world to atleast a degree where the experiencing of the world through any other method is insignificant?
maybe badly phrased. I didn’t mean it to sound ridiculous.
Whats a term for someone who sees no worth in religion only science?
Surely there are people like that?
Ok maybe you misunderstand me. Not truth. How about worth in something where the worth can not be explained by science. Obviously Sex and food can be explained via science. Science tells us there is worth in both eating and having sex.
Whats a term for someone who sees no worth in religion, only science and things explainable by science?
Atheism is a vague catch-all term. In terms of how it is commonly used, “atheism” is a reaction to strict Christianity in the west, which is itself a reaction to modernity, and so on. The “theos” is this case that is being “a-ed” is the Judeo-Christian God. More broadly, it means a rejection of the importance of any sort of god or spirit, though not necessarily other forms of woo (such as astral projections, or whatever else you can imagine). I’ve recently been introduced to the term “nontheist” which describes the latter leaving the former open to its proper association with (logical) positivism and/or skepticism, which based on your OP and responses is what I believe is what you are fishing for.
The take home lesson: atheism, like theism, only makes sense within a particular context.
Ok, can one be an atheist in some contexts and not in others then?
It generally isn’t presented that way, but clearly. Romans thought that Christians were atheists, but I can’t think of any moderns aside from radical Spinozaists who would make a similar claim. Likewise, Buddhism is often considered atheist, but the presence of spiritual beings make others say that Buddhism is theist (which is why I think nontheist is a more apt term anyway). Representing states of belief, both atheism and theism are labels we apply for understanding, not actual concrete things.