You are the one who defined me as a theist.You're the one who said you were a deist, not me.
Tom
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You are the one who defined me as a theist.You're the one who said you were a deist, not me.
No, you did that by referring to yourself as a deist.You are the one who defined me as a theist.
Tom
I am an observer to the atheist/theist debate. From that and discussions with my parents many years ago when I was growing up, I don't see why there can't be a middle 'undecided' option. I don't see why it has to be one or the other.
In discussions with Mom or Dad when I was questioning life, the discussion would often go something like this.
Me: So do you believe in God?
Them: No, but I suppose it's possible.
Me: So you think there is no God?
Them: I suppose that's possible too.
These conversations were rare, because it simply wasn't a topic that was ever discussed unless some inquiring teenager brought it up. So is this officially agnosticism? Or is it just indifference to religion. Certainly to me it's neither atheism nor theism.
Thoughts?
In Evangelical circles, they would rarely call someone of another religion an atheist (it never happened in my experience). However they do denounce their religions as false, unreal, and as demon worship.I'd imagine anyone who believe in a God you didn't believe in might call you an atheist. Especially if they believed there existed only one true God in which you didn't believe in.
"What?" "You don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?" "You atheist."
View attachment 28007
A while back, I had an online argument with someone insisting that deism was a type of atheism who - seriously - altered a bunch of Wikipedia pages so that he could quote them in our thread. I wonder if some of that didn't get caught.Notice that pantheism exists on that page, even though you would omit it, as does deism if you go to Nontheistic religion - Wikipedia
Well, no. There's much more to theism than classical monotheism.Classical theism is a form of monotheism but it's also just theism.
If someone is any sort of theist, then they fail to meet the one and only criterion to be an atheist.Where you are and what you're talking about will impact whether you emphasize classical theism or weak/strong atheism. But if someone calls themselves a non theistic pantheist or deist that makes perfect sense etymologically and theologically even if it's not American common use.
But no more to deism than your dictionary definition?Well, no. There's much more to theism than classical monotheism.
Not sure what you're getting at.But no more to deism than your dictionary definition?
Tom
I can assure you that deism being nontheist exists on wikipedia because its neither a new or novel concept.A while back, I had an online argument with someone insisting that deism was a type of atheism who - seriously - altered a bunch of Wikipedia pages so that he could quote them in our thread. I wonder if some of that didn't get caught.
Yes, there is, but there is also a definition of theism that does not include all god concepts, just personal, involved gods. So saying 'I'm a deist, not a theist' is perfectly acceptable even if it isn't part of your chosen definition.Well, no. There's much more to theism than classical monotheism.
According to one part of one definition which is not the end all be all of the theological discussionIf someone is any sort of theist, then they fail to meet the one and only criterion to be an atheist
That's what happens when you treat academic philosophy and theology terms as monolithic.Until I came to RF, I had no idea that there were people in this world who thought that theistic atheism is a thing. I'm still having trouble wrapping my head around the idea that this is even a conversation that needs to be had.
There is only one single word which perfectly describes your beliefs. You're a Vinayaka.Thoughts?
People love neat labels and get annoyed when their labels don't fit, the fault is then the one they wish to label. Although I'm practically a transtheist, for reasons of debates I've been given the label theist.I'm a transtheist. I don't find the whole theist/atheist construct to be very useful, especially with all of the less-than-logical stuff that grew from it which depends upon this theist/atheist construct.
Because theism (belief in at least one god) and atheism (lack of belief in gods) form a MECE set. Everyone belongs to exactly one of these categories.
Sounds to me like you were an atheist.
Agnosticism isn't just being on the fence about whether God exists; it's the positive assertion that existence or non-existence of gods is unknowable.
Atheism (lack of belief in gods) doesn't necessarily imply anti-theism (the assertion that gods do not exist).
I am an observer to the atheist/theist debate. From that and discussions with my parents many years ago when I was growing up, I don't see why there can't be a middle 'undecided' option. I don't see why it has to be one or the other.
In discussions with Mom or Dad when I was questioning life, the discussion would often go something like this.
Me: So do you believe in God?
Them: No, but I suppose it's possible.
Me: So you think there is no God?
Them: I suppose that's possible too.
These conversations were rare, because it simply wasn't a topic that was ever discussed unless some inquiring teenager brought it up. So is this officially agnosticism? Or is it just indifference to religion. Certainly to me it's neither atheism nor theism.
Thoughts?
Read what I said. They didn't say 'no'. It was really more a 'Maybe.'
The term "god(s)" seems to take on whatever meaning an individual assigns to the term. What one person might call a "god," I might call an egregore. What another person might call a "god," I might call an Archetype. What another person might call "god," I might call a psychological projection, for a few of examples. I have no problem acknowledging the existence of egregores, maaras, Archetypes, and psychological projections. I just don't call them gods.Because theism (belief in at least one god) and atheism (lack of belief in gods) form a MECE set. Everyone belongs to exactly one of these categories.
"I find the atheist/theist dichotomy to be useless" does not imply "I'm neither a theist nor an atheist.
Because the definition says that "specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe".Definition of theist:
A person who believes in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.
In the definition, the God (with the capital letter G) refers to (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority, the supreme being.Definition of atheist:
A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
By using the definition above i quote from Oxford Dictionaries website,I am an observer to the atheist/theist debate. From that and discussions with my parents many years ago when I was growing up, I don't see why there can't be a middle 'undecided' option. I don't see why it has to be one or the other.
In discussions with Mom or Dad when I was questioning life, the discussion would often go something like this.
Me: So do you believe in God?
Them: No, but I suppose it's possible.
Me: So you think there is no God?
Them: I suppose that's possible too.
These conversations were rare, because it simply wasn't a topic that was ever discussed unless some inquiring teenager brought it up. So is this officially agnosticism? Or is it just indifference to religion. Certainly to me it's neither atheism nor theism.
Thoughts?
Thinking about this, I wonder if intent has something to do with the question . As in maybe it is important to some whether there really is a God or gods but they know as most atheists know, we can not know for certain. But most atheists don't care if there is a God or not. Maybe the middle way or agnostic is not knowing, believing there is no way to know but still keep it as a question which is important to them?I am an observer to the atheist/theist debate. From that and discussions with my parents many years ago when I was growing up, I don't see why there can't be a middle 'undecided' option. I don't see why it has to be one or the other.
In discussions with Mom or Dad when I was questioning life, the discussion would often go something like this.
Me: So do you believe in God?
Them: No, but I suppose it's possible.
Me: So you think there is no God?
Them: I suppose that's possible too.
These conversations were rare, because it simply wasn't a topic that was ever discussed unless some inquiring teenager brought it up. So is this officially agnosticism? Or is it just indifference to religion. Certainly to me it's neither atheism nor theism.
Thoughts?
Thinking about this, I wonder if intent has something to do with the question . As in maybe it is important to some whether there really is a God or gods but they know as most atheists know, we can not know for certain. But most atheists don't care if there is a God or not. Maybe the middle way or agnostic is not knowing, believing there is no way to know but still keep it as a question which is important to them?
I used to think of myself as agnostic. It used to be something I cared about if there was an answer to. I still had risidual religious guilt left over so it still mattered even though no one knew and probably never would have a way to know for certain.
Now I don't care either way and don't believe any stories told about gods and lean towards there not being one because it just doesn't make sense. Does that make sense?