Neither a Theist nor an Atheist Be?

[lukethethird]

The futility seems in getting them to define "god." It's like they are asking "do you like contents?" What contents? "It doesn't matter, you either like it or you don't." But what is it? "It doesn't work like that." It could be this or that, and that's not even really that clear or that well understood outside of your knowledge of the contents are. "It doesn't matter. You like the contents or you don't." I could tell them, if only they'd give me some idea what it is.

Personally, I leave defining god for the theist to partake in, which in turn doesn't allow me to be an atheist because I don't know what it is I am supposed to be opposed to, and besides I haven't figured out what difference it makes if gods exist or not so if it doesn't make any difference, what's the point of the theist vs atheist argument?

 

[Ayjaydee]

Personally, I leave defining god for the theist to partake in, which in turn doesn't allow me to be an atheist because I don't know what it is I am supposed to be opposed to, and besides I haven't figured out what difference it makes if gods exist or not so if it doesn't make any difference, what's the point of the theist vs atheist argument?

Because whoever wins often believes they have a right to impose their view on the loser

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Personally, I leave defining god for the theist to partake in, which in turn doesn't allow me to be an atheist because I don't know what it is I am supposed to be opposed to, and besides I haven't figured out what difference it makes if gods exist or not so if it doesn't make any difference, what's the point of the theist vs atheist argument?

I think it's really only important to those who insist that we all must be one or the other. I can think of about a hundred other debates and positions I've heard that very same thing. That it must be either-or. No in-betweens. Nothing else. Nothing other. But that is just not how the universe itself functions. This is a bit of a different topic than something like day and night, color spectrums, or gender, but allthewhile this "atheist/theist" thing, the insistence that it must be that and only that, it does seem a lingering remnant of a time when thinking was much simpler, when things where strictly either of god or of the devil, of the sun or the moon, good or evil, something that still does continue today in many other areas.

 

[SalixIncendium]

All of that is completely irrelevant.

Do they believe in a deity?
If yes, theist.
If no, atheist.

Simopke as that.

All these side trips and add ons and fluff and window dressing that all these people want to distract from the question is irrelevant.

Either a person believes or they do not believe.

You'd have done best to quit a few pages back, because your argument just crumbled in a single post.

By your most recent definition, one that believes in or has experienced the existence of Para Brahman is an atheist. Because Brahman is most certainly no deity.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Do you think that bananas are also non-smokers, civilians, and vegetarians?

Clearly, they're not.

 

[SalixIncendium]

You are free to call any description a label if it makes you feel better.
I suspect that is the biggest difference in our views.

So now you're suggesting "theist" and "atheist" aren't labels?

 

[crossfire]

I stumbled across this statement whilst puttering around teh interwebz.

"There is, however, no "not atheist nor theist". Anyone who actively believes there is a god is a theist. Anyone who does not (even if they consider the question "unknowable" or the like), is an atheist. There is not any neither theist nor atheist, everyone is one or the other."

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-b...a-person-who-is-neither-religious-nor-atheist

Is this true? Does one have to be either an atheist or a theist? If so, why? If not, what other options are there? Do you know anyone who is neither?

This person obviously lacks belief that neither @SalixIncendium or I exist! Let's haunt him!

Let me borrow some of your passionate pink and lime green paisley shirts to enhance his experience!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What if someone believes in some obscure ancient god that no one else has even heard of, and in reality that god doesn't even exist,

Seriously?

You tell me: do you think someone who "believes in some obscure ancient god that no one else has even heard of" believes in a god?

is that person a theist or just delusional,

These categories aren't mutually exclusive.

or an atheist because that person does not believe in any of the gods that anyone alive today believes in?

The fact that you would even ask this suggests you haven't read a damned thing in my posts you've replied to.

And further, considering the above, how is atheism or theism relevant to anything?

It's only relevant to the extent that people care about their gods... which is sometime quite a bit.

I look forward to the day when belief in gods is such an irrelevant, fringe thing that it would be silly and useless to divide the world into categories based on whether they believe in gods or not. We're not there yet, though.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Does one have to be either an atheist or a theist?

Yes, as I define the terms, which is the same as the definitions already provided by several others. An atheist is anybody who tells you that they believe that a god or gods exist, and everybody else is an atheist.

What then is an agnostic?

Anybody who claims to not know whether p or not-p is the case, and it is not limited to god beliefs.

The reason I ask is that it seems to me there is a move to co-opt all the people who, when I was younger, would have regarded themselves as agnostic, into the "atheist" camp, in order to boost their numbers. Dawkins and co do this, I suspect as part of their campaign to belittle religious belief.

I see it the other way around. The attempt to force atheism to mean the explicit denial that there is a god is an effort to make the number of atheists, most of whom don't hold that view, seem smaller. Any nomenclature that excludes somebody like me from atheism because he doesn't also positively aver that gods do not exist isn't one that is useful to me, and the older nomenclature that forces one to choose between theist, agnostic, and atheist as if they are three mutually exclusive categories just doesn't work for those who are both atheist and agnostic.

you are dealing here with people's thinking on a tricky and tenuous subject. You are trying, in effect, to bully them all into taking a firm position, which a sizeable proportion of them may be unwilling to do.

I don't see that, either. If you choose to call yourself something other than what I would call you, that's fine. It's not important to me that you know whether I consider you an atheist or theist, much less that you agree. Call yourself whatever you like, even if I call you something else. Where's the bullying there? Who is fighting your self-identification?

A better word would be non-theist because atheist sounds like in opposition.

The prefix a- is a privative prefix that means without, not against. Anti- means against.

Agnosticism is the mother of all semantic arguments. The argument goes as follows: In order for a statement to be valid it has to have meaning. "God' is a word without meaning. Therefore any sentence containing the word "god" in a way where it is semantically significant, is not a well formed statement.

That sounds like ignosticism - "the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because the word "God" has no coherent and unambiguous definition."

I'm not a Theist because I do not believe in an interested or aware God. Atheists won't let me in their club because I am a Deist. So........ Deists fall in the gap in the middle.

If what you call god is not and never was aware, then you are an atheist by my reckoning. But I believe that most deists would say that a sentient god created reality.

The deist god emerged in the mid-eighteenth century once the first wave of scientists demonstrated the automatic nature of the universe by showing that planets orbit their stars without being pushed or pulled by angels or Apollo, that lightning forms without Thor or any intelligent agent, etc.. The Christian ruler-builder-creator god became the deist builder-creator god. This was the first step toward atheism, but there was still a sentient god involved, so I call it a form of theism.

But what is "god?" Who is "god?" Is it a thing? A being? A conscious entity? A thing as impersonal as gravity? Is it the Universe? Is a man-like being away in a spiritual realm?

I let the other guy tell me what he believes "God" to be. If it's not sentient, like the laws of physics, then I consider that person to be an atheist even if they wouldn't use the word to describe themselves.

My interest in this is simply to track trends in the prevalence of religious belief. I don't care what people call themselves. What I care about is organized, politicized religion attempting to inject religious beliefs into government. In the West, that's Christianity. I just want to know how many Christians there are that support theocratic tendencies and who vote in specific ways.

So this MECE ("a way of segmenting information into sub-elements that are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive") dichotomy works well for me. If a person answers no to the question of god beliefs, that person will not be supporting Christianity in government. If he answers yes, then I want to know how he feels about church-state separation. None of these other issues such as whether a person is an atheist or theist if they believe in Brahma, or if there is a middle ground between atheism and theism, or if one has to positively claim that gods don't exist to be an atheist just don't matter,

This has not been defined, and we can't proceed until it has.

The merit of the idea that we call those who answer yes to the question whether they believe in a god or gods theists, and anybody that has not taken that position an atheist is avoids the semantic problems that those who prefer other ways of organizing thought are having. They're not making any progress in this discussion, still stuck at its start. Those who have chosen this yes-no approach are having no such problem.

Seriously? You tell me: do you think someone who "believes in some obscure ancient god that no one else has even heard of" believes in a god?

This is so simple when one adopts the atheist-theist dichotomy schema, but apparently so much more difficult without it. All of this confusion and dithering with fuzzy formulations.

 

[syo]

I stumbled across this statement whilst puttering around teh interwebz.

"There is, however, no "not atheist nor theist". Anyone who actively believes there is a god is a theist. Anyone who does not (even if they consider the question "unknowable" or the like), is an atheist. There is not any neither theist nor atheist, everyone is one or the other."

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-b...a-person-who-is-neither-religious-nor-atheist

Is this true? Does one have to be either an atheist or a theist? If so, why? If not, what other options are there? Do you know anyone who is neither?

Apatheists. They are neither cause they don't care at all. They don't think if there's a god or not, it's out of their interest.

 

[McBell]

You'd have done best to quit a few pages back, because your argument just crumbled in a single post.

By your most recent definition, one that believes in or has experienced the existence of Para Brahman is an atheist. Because Brahman is most certainly no deity.

You are right.
Since you are not interested in honest discourse, I shall leave you to it.

Have a nice day.

 

[Heyo]

That sounds like ignosticism - "the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because the word "God" has no coherent and unambiguous definition."

As Huxley's definition of Agnosticism has been watered down in modern parlance, the need for a name for the original arose and "ignosticism" was the answer. But since most people know neither about ignosticism nor about Huxley, I stick to the original. I have to explain it in both cases.

 

[lukethethird]

Seriously?

You tell me: do you think someone who "believes in some obscure ancient god that no one else has even heard of" believes in a god?


These categories aren't mutually exclusive.


The fact that you would even ask this suggests you haven't read a damned thing in my posts you've replied to.


It's only relevant to the extent that people care about their gods... which is sometime quite a bit.

I look forward to the day when belief in gods is such an irrelevant, fringe thing that it would be silly and useless to divide the world into categories based on whether they believe in gods or not. We're not there yet, though.

Does God or gods exist?, maybe, maybe not, best leave that for others to decide.

 

[lukethethird]

Maybe the best way to determine whether gods exist or not is to flip a coin.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Have a nice day.

Thank you very much! I wish you the same!

 

[oldbadger]

If what you call god is not and never was aware, then you are an atheist by my reckoning. But I believe that most deists would say that a sentient god created reality.

You got that wrong.
Theists believe in an aware, interacting God.
Deists believe in an unaware, non-interacting God.
And so as soon as you try to mix the two, then you're lost.

The deist god emerged in the mid-eighteenth century once the first wave of scientists demonstrated the automatic nature of the universe by showing that planets orbit their stars without being pushed or pulled by angels or Apollo, that lightning forms without Thor or any intelligent agent, etc.. The Christian ruler-builder-creator god became the deist builder-creator god. This was the first step toward atheism, but there was still a sentient god involved, so I call it a form of theism..

No. The 'Title' and 'idea' emerged in the 18th century.
The Deist God has always been there, just like matter and energy has.

Deists have no home with either Theists or Atheists, it seems. Nowhere to get a mug o' tea and cake.

 

[lukethethird]

Apatheists. They are neither cause they don't care at all. They don't think if there's a god or not, it's out of their interest.

Bingo. We have a winner.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Apatheists. They are neither cause they don't care at all. They don't think if there's a god or not, it's out of their interest.

Apatheists are generally atheists; they just don't care that they're atheists.

 

[syo]

Apatheists are generally atheists; they just don't care that they're atheists.

A theist could say the exact thing. ''Apatheists are generally theists; they just don't care that they're theists.''

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A theist could say the exact thing. ''Apatheists are generally theists; they just don't care that they're theists.''

So you - or this hypothetical theist - thinks apatheists believe in gods?