Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
"The king is dead. Long live the king!" Is not a contradiction.
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why Debate the Existence of God with Non-believers?
- Thread starter steeltoes
- Start date
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Exactly.
Some call it "sexed up atheism" and some call pan(en)theism a "theism." So the problem is... what do people think "pan(en)theism" is? Atheism or theism? It's both.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Correct, but it's also not relevant here.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Hmm I think it indicates theism. That's how I view it. You must mean that it can be either.
Last edited:
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
I am both a theist and an atheist -- and neither -- at the same time.
Try it with other terms: I am both a conservative and a liberal -- and neither -- at the same time.
I am both a handsomeguy and a non-handsomeguy -- and neither -- at the same time.
They're just words, just labels. Being the one doesn't exclude also being the other.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Yes. It is.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
No, I don't. Some might, but in either case, you're either an atheist or a theist.
From here.
Atheism is in opposition to theism. When you say someone is an atheist, it means they don't believe in theism, as defined above. Since there are so many conceptions of "God", it can't possibly refer to all of them, and it's not supposed to. Some people say God is love, or then there are pantheists. I believe in the universe and love, but that doesn't make me a theist.
However, others would use the broadest possible definition of "theist" as noted above, and so you'd fall into that category. But then in that case, you're a theist and not an atheist.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Well dude, I consider myself a theist, and I'm panentheistic.
So, you can have your own definitions here, but those would just be your personal definitions.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Being one does actually exclude being the other. That's the point. You might have some conservative ideas and liberal ideas, but if you're a conservative, you're not a liberal. If you feel you're too much of a mix of the two, then you're an independent or some other word. You can't both believe in something and not believe in it at the same time. It would be like saying you're simultaneously sleeping and not sleeping.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
No, it's not. The point of that phrase is to say "The person who used to be king is now dead. Long live the person who is now king". Each sentence refers to a different person, but at different points in time each person is king. That has nothing to do with the idea that someone could believe and not believe in God at the same time.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Well, there you go. You're a theist, not an atheist. So, you still haven't shown how my claim that you're either an atheist or a theist is false.
Sure, they're my definitions, but they're my definitions because they're the most useful and most directed at how society views the issue.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Either you're extremely sheltered, or this isn't true. Seeing that you've been on this forum for a few years, I'd have to go with the latter. The usual type of theism is belief in a being like Yahweh/Allah, a being who created the universe and watches it closely and affects it directly. In this most common theism, the universe and God are separate things.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Actually these types of conversations don't come up that much. I understand what you're saying, but I don't think that that should affect how I label theism and atheism.
Also, I think the conversation is getting into apples/oranges.
So an atheist doesn't believe in the theistic version of God only? Then would you say a pantheist, or a panenthiest is an atheist? If so, that's odd considering a panentheist believes in a personal God, yet is not a theist in the sense of the word you mean. And the pantheist believes in God as well, but sees the Absolute in everything.
So then, the panentheist and the pantheist according to your definitions are atheists who believe in God.
Why not? You mean it's not helpful to prove your argument?
Oh, but the panenthiest does. I believe a pantheist may as well, since the world is very personal, as well as impersonal.
To me, an atheist is someone who thinks that no God, in any understanding, is valid and therefore they do not believe any form or use of the word God.
And so his point is made. He is both an atheist, and a theist.
But in reality, way beyond this simple point, when dealing with nonduality, God both exists and does not exist at the same instant. In this sense, I am both an atheist and a theist at the same time. It's really all just matters of perspective.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
........
Last edited:
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
First, I don't know where you live. If you don't live in a Western or Middle Eastern country where one of the big three religions is dominant, then that might be something. But even still, you've been on this site for years. The idea of theism as I presented it is constantly talked about here. It's about the most popular topic there is.
Second, I think it should affect how you label theism and atheism. You're welcome to define any word any way you want, but the point of using words is to communicate with others. The best way to do that is to use definitions based on what it will mean to other people. In other words, define things the most helpful way. Theism is commonly understood as believing in personal gods like Yahweh, not as panentheism. So, atheism, being sort of a response to theism, would then be not believing in personal gods like Yahweh. If you don't want to think of it that way, that's your choice. But that's the most helpful and meaningful way to do it.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
We each see things as we see them, but I think that's a confused conception.
Here's a question which I'd very much like to hear you answer. It's a tough one:
If I say that I am a liberal, and you say that I'm a conservative... which am I?
Nah. I don't believe in labels. A word can't control who I am. Conservative and liberal are simply opinions about me. Either my own opinion about me or someone else's opinion about me. But I'm not actually a conservative or a liberal.
Of course I can. Do you think that belief is an ON/OFF state? Not for me. I can (and do) kinda sorta believe in God and kinda sorta don't. Depending on the particular definition for God, my belief might range from a vague 7.5% all the way up to a pretty certain 83.6%.
Are you thinking that at 50.1%, I am required to declare that I 'have belief'?
First, sleeping is a physical event. Belief isn't. Second, talk to a sleep specialist. There are lots of states which one specialist might call sleeping and another might call waking.
They're just words. Really.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
I don't see how the panentheistic god is a personal god, at least not in the same sense as Yahweh. But yes, I would define both of them as atheists. Pantheists make it clear. I believe in the universe and some connection among it all, but I'm not a pantheist.
No, they are atheists who believe in something they call "God". Some people call love "God", and we all believe in love, meaning that would make us all theists, which isn't true or helpful.
Because it's impossible to have a meaningful conversation at that point. If God can mean anything from love to the universe to some being outside of the universe who controls it, then it's impossible to discuss it.
Then to you no human being is an atheist. That's the problem. There are so many conceptions of God that everyone believes in one of them, even if they don't consider it God. The best example is "love". Some define that as God. I believe in love, but I'm an atheist.
No. He might be considered an atheist by some and a theist by others, but he's not an atheist and theist simultaneously.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
It depends on your beliefs.
Labels aren't meant to control who you are. They're meant to facilitate communication.
No. You either believe in a theistic god or you don't. You can't do both at once. It's really that simple. Not believing in some god-concepts is not part of the equation. "Atheist" refers to a specific god-concept, or else it becomes useless.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
I live in the us lol.
Dude, you're not using the dictionary definitions....I'm not going to change definitions for some reason that isn't even clear.
Anyways, later nice chat.