• 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!

Neither theist nor atheist?

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
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?

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."

upload_2019-4-4_12-50-56.jpeg
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
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
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.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Notice that pantheism exists on that page, even though you would omit it, as does deism if you go to Nontheistic religion - Wikipedia
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.

Classical theism is a form of monotheism but it's also just theism.
Well, no. There's much more to theism than classical monotheism.

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.
If someone is any sort of theist, then they fail to meet the one and only criterion to be an atheist.

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.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
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.
I can assure you that deism being nontheist exists on wikipedia because its neither a new or novel concept.
Well, no. There's much more to theism than classical monotheism.
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.
This kind of reminds me of some super touchy atheists who quickly say 'apes, not monkeys' even though the distinguishment is mostly an English layman thing. Most languages dont even have that division
If someone is any sort of theist, then they fail to meet the one and only criterion to be an atheist
According to one part of one definition which is not the end all be all of the theological discussion
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.
That's what happens when you treat academic philosophy and theology terms as monolithic.
 

Deidre

Well-Known Member
Undecided could always mean ''agnostic?'' I don't feel labels are necessary, tbh. It seems we only need them in order to prove something or define ourselves to someone else. :relaxed:
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
Hmm. I do find myself sort of in between these labels, I suppose.
I find myself very happy mingling around the Atheism DIR. And I feel comfortable in the Hindu DIR.
Though perhaps that’s because philosophy and religion were always inseparably intertwined in my upbringing. Thus I find myself unable to have hard and fast rules about theism in general.o_O
 

Jumi

Well-Known Member
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.
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.
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
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.

No, because the position "I have no idea" or "I don't know," or "I don't believe that we can know/prove this one way or the other" is not in either category.


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.

That position would, I believe, include the belief "being on the fence about whether God exists." As in...if one cannot know whether or not a god/gods exist, then there might well be one. Or more.



Atheism (lack of belief in gods) doesn't necessarily imply anti-theism (the assertion that gods do not exist).

No, it doesn't, any more than theism implies Christianity alone. Atheism, however, DOES include 'anti-theism,' as well as 'ignosticism' (the statement that any belief in god is irrelevant since nobody has come up with a coherent definition of 'god.' )

Ok, that's the end of my personal pontification. I promise.
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
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?

One may be indifferent to religion, but not be indifferent to the existence (or non-existence) of God.

If one is indifferent to the existence of God, or didn't really consider it, I would call that implicit atheism. However, if one actively questions the existence of God as exemplified above and remains undecided or decides that the question is unanswerable, I consider that to be agnosticism.
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
Read what I said. They didn't say 'no'. It was really more a 'Maybe.'

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.


Did YOU read what you wrote? It says you asked So do you believe in God? They answered, NO. Then they added... but I suppose it's possible. The fact that they think it's POSSIBLE does NOT mean they they DO believe in God. You seem to confuse someone saying they do not believe that a God definitely exists with a belief that a God definitely does NOT exist. They are not the same.

Let's say person A and person B both see a jar filled with marbles that neither has ever seen before. Person A declares: "I believe that there are exactly 448 marbles in that jar, no more and no less." He then turns to person B and asked: "Do you ALSO believe that there are exactly 448 marbles in that jar, no more and no less?"

If person B responds, "No, I do not believe that there are exactly 448 marbles in that jar, no more and no less." Is he stating there he believes that it is IMPOSSIBLE for there to be 448 marbles in the jar? No, he is simply stating that he has no valid reason to believe that the number is exactly 448.

So your parents are saying; "No, we do not believe that there are exactly 448 marbles... but we are certainly open to the possibility that there MIGHT be 448 marbles.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
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.
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.

So, does the supposed MECE set of theism/atheism simply mean the application or nonapplication of the term "god" to any countless number of phenomena? Does it mean the acceptance or denial of such phenomena with the application of labelling as "god?" It's really not as clear-cut as one claiming MECE would claim it to be upon a minimal bit of observation and the application of a minimal amount of logic.

Your mileage may vary.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
"I find the atheist/theist dichotomy to be useless" does not imply "I'm neither a theist nor an atheist.

I'm not going to allow the application of a useless label to myself based upon a useless dichotomy masquerading as an all-encompassing MECE set. I can most definitely assert that I'm neither a theist nor an atheist, because I don't play that game, and I refuse to be enraptured (seized, related to the term rape) by the deceptive conceptual construction.
 

Pudding

Well-Known Member
Definition of theist:
A person who believes in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.
Because the definition says that "specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe".
Therefor a person who believes in the existence of a creator god/gods who doesn't intervenes in the universe, by definition he is not a theist.

Definition of atheist:
A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
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.

The gods (with lowercase g) probably refers to non-universe creator and non-monotheistic religion's god.

Note that the definition says "God or gods", it doesn't say "God and gods".
Therefor as long as a person lacks belief in the existence of either God or gods, by definition he is an atheist.
A person who lacks belief in the existence of God but not gods, by this definition he is an atheist;
a person who lacks belief in the existence of gods but not God, by definition he is also an atheist.


So, a person who believes in the existence of a creator god who intervenes in the universe, by definition he is a theist. Otoh, if that same person lacks belief in the existence of non-universe creator and non-monotheistic religion's god, by definition he is an atheist. So, he is a theist, at the same time he is also an atheist.


Definition of agnostic:
A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

Definition of god:
1 - (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
1.2 - (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

Definition of deity:
1 - A god or goddess (in a polytheistic religion)
2 - (usually the Deity) The creator and supreme being (in a monotheistic religion such as Christianity)

Definition of specifically:
1 - In a way that is exact and clear; precisely.
1.2 - For a particular purpose.
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?
By using the definition above i quote from Oxford Dictionaries website,

your dialogue with your parents is that:
Me: So do you believe in God?
Them: No, but I suppose it's possible.


According to your dialogue, your parents lacks belief in the existence of God, therefor by definition they're atheists.

The God with capital letter G in your dialogue probably refer to a universe-creator God.
It's not sure whether the God you refer to is a creator God who intervenes in the universe, or a creator God who doesn't intervenes in the universe, as you haven't mention anything about that.

If the God in your dialogue is referring to a non-intervenes creator God:
(a) Also if your parents believes in the existence of a creator God who does intervene in the universe, then by definition your parents are theists.
(b) Or if your parents do not believes in the existence of a creator God who does intervene in the universe, then by definition your parents are not theists.
 
Last edited:

wandering peacefully

Which way to the woods?
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?
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
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?

Yes it makes sense to me.
 
Top