lukethethird
unknown member
Does it matter if the hairs on your head amount to odds or evens? Are you going to go about your business any differently if you somehow knew?What does that matter?
-
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 a Theist nor an Atheist Be?
- Thread starter SalixIncendium
- Start date
Everyone agrees what hairs are, and they are quantifiable. Not so with god.
To elaborate: a pantheist might say that the universe is god. I would certainly agree that the universe exists, but I wouldn't call it god. Another person might say that god is a spiritual being who is a sentient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and perfect. While I might be able to hold the idea of a spiritual being, the idea of a sentient being that is not subject to delusion does not make sense to me as sentience (having a subjective mind) is prone to delusion by design (delusion being mistaking subjective content for objective content.) Yet another person might say gods are collective thought forms fed by prayers. I would call these egregores or maaras, not gods. Others might say god is the natural laws of the universe, where I would simply call them the natural laws of the universe, not god. So, once you get passed any description of god that can be named as god, you get to the undescribable. While I believe in the existence of things that cannot be described, I wouldn't call it god.
This is why I call myself transtheist. The concept of theism/atheism isn't very useful once you start considering particular interpretations. I don't consider a generalization very useful if it cannot be reliably applied to particulars.
Your mileage may vary.
We've been over this already.
No. I wrote, "I don't call anything unaware a god." My leading candidate for the origin of the universe is the multiverse hypothesis. I don't consider the multiverse to be a god, which I have defined as being a conscious agent with intention.
That's not relevant to his point, which is that however indifferent you are regarding the number of those hairs, that number is still even or odd.
Likewise with apathetism regarding gods. If the apathetist has no god belief, he is an atheist by my reckoning even if he is also apathetic.
"Transtheism refers to a system of thought or religious philosophy which is neither theistic nor atheistic, but is beyond them. The word was coined by either philosopher Paul Tillich or Indologist Heinrich Zimmer. Zimmer applies the term to Jainism, which is theistic in the limited sense that gods exist but are irrelevant as they are transcended by moksha (that is, a system which is not non-theistic, but in which the gods are not the highest spiritual instance)." - Wiki
I call that theism. Simply saying that such ideas transcend theism and atheism doesn't mean that people holding them cannot be called theistic or atheistic based on the presence or absence of a god belief.
But it's not the kind of theism that is a problem in the world. Nor would I expect you to vote for candidate and issues that promote any given religion or religious belief in general, which I indicated is really my only interest in this matter. I am anti-theist in the limited sense that I consider that both Christianity and Islam do net harm in the world, and that the world is better off with less of each. So, I watch with interest as the West becomes more irreligious, and a useful metric is to compare the relative ratios of believers to unbelievers over time, recognizing that many believers are not a problem, and so further dividing believers into zealot adherents of organized, politicized religious systems willing to impose their religious beliefs on others.
If that problem goes away, I would have no further interest in anybody's religious status, and even now, I don't really care what word an individual uses to describe himself - apathetist, ignostic, transtheist, spiritual, skeptic, agnostic, freethinker, antitheist, secular humanist, objectivist, irreligionist, naturalist, materialist (or physicalist), bright, naturalistic pantheist, pandeist, deist, new ager, pagan, satanist or wiccan.
None of that matters to me, and with my present manner of organizing my thoughts on these matters, I can cut through all of that with a few simple questions, such as, do you believe in a god or a god (which I understand to be asking, are you a theist or atheist?, even if they don't), and, do you believe that your god wants abortion and same sex marriage to be illegal again (which I interpret to ask, are you theocratic or do you respect church-state separation?). It isn't necessary to share what or how thinking with them.
So you can see why names like transtheist and claims to be neither theistic nor atheistic aren't helpful.
lukethethird
unknown member
The point was that God exists or does not exist, and that, like odds or evens, it makes no difference whatever the outcome happens to be. Ask an apatheist if God exists, your answer will be, 'maybe, maybe not, who cares?'
Heyo
Veteran Member
"What is worse, ignorance or apathy?" -
"I don't know and I don't care."
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Well, that's your opinion. But if you look up the definition of Deism you will discover that it is all about an unaware or uninterested God!
Well, I am a Deist and I have every belief, on the balance of probabilities that there are billions of Universes. Why wouldn't there be? And the whole lot of all that matter and energy is God, which is why it isn't surprising to me that God is unaware of us, just as I am of most of the little hairs on the back of my fingers.
You call me a theist, theists generally call me non-theist.
No, I don't think same-sex marriage or abortion should be illegal.
Your above antitheistic reasoning demonstrates exactly why transtheism is a useful term, as it doesn't follow your notions regarding theism driven politics.
Paul Tillich thinks that everyone is a theist.
Ancient Soul
The Spiritual Universe
Yes, lots of people have their own "god" constructs, even within their own religions they all have different ideas about what their "god" is or isn't.
This one is the most unique in my opinion:
Flying Spaghetti Monster - Wikipedia
Ancient Soul
The Spiritual Universe
You have the right idea about God.
God created the physical universe/realm within the spiritual universe/realm, himself, God.
Both are separate, yet both are God, for the entire living universe is the living God..
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
There is soft atheism (no belief in a god) and hard atheism (a belief that there is no god),
I dislike that dichotomy:
- it apparently assumes monotheism. Practically everyone - theists included - is a "hard atheist" toward a handful of gods and a "soft atheist" to most of the gods humanity has ever believed in. Saying "I'm a hard/soft atheist" is only workable if we're only talking about a single god (or a limited pantheon, but that's almost never what weren't talking about).
- it perpetuates the ridiculous notion that an atheist either absolutely rejects any possibility of a particular god with 100% certainty or they have no opinion at all.
For instance, where does the position "while I can't rule out with perfect certainty that the god you claim exists out beyond human knowledge, the god you believe in is ridiculous, you're a fool for believing in him/her/it/them, and the arguments you give for his/her/its/their existence are full of factual mistakes, logical errors, and outright lies" fit into the "hard/soft atheist" dichotomy?
I don't consider it an opinion, but rather, a definition. You and I might agree on everything in this area except what to call it.
I find it useful to distinguish between conscious and unconscious sources of our universe, and I choose to use the word god only with conscious agents. If one uses the word god to refer to any source of the universe including the multiverse, then that's fine, and I will understand him as I believe I now do you, but I will continue to view such a person as an atheist if his belief is in an unconscious source for the reasons already given.
That's irrelevant to me. I am no more influenced by a dictionary definition of a word that I use than I am by any other definition. Unaware and uninterested are different things, the latter being conscious.
I go to the dictionary when somebody uses a word I don't know, and then just to see an approximation of what that person means. I never go there to see how I must use language.
I think that I'm having trouble getting through to you that I am only reporting how I organize ideas. This is what makes the most sense to me. How others choose to think is their choice, and I'll try to understand them if they define their terms.
If they won't do the same for me, communication will be difficult, which is also fine. It isn't necessary to be understood by everybody, and it is unlikely that I will be understood by those who are insistent that a word means what they or a dictionary want it to mean, cannot be used any other way, and insist that when I use that word that it means what they want me to mean.
I have no reason to call all of that God or a god. In fact, and I have good reason not to. Look at all of the confusion over Einstein and his religious beliefs if any caused by doing just what you are doing - conflating unconscious sources for our universe with conscious ones and calling them all God.
I still don't know what he really believes, which is fine with me, but my guess is that Einstein wanted to be understood. Is their a conscious principle underlying reality for Einstein, or not? Who knows? His viewpoint might be the same as mine (as I suspect yours is as well), or not. It's unclear.
But you do understand what I believe because the language I have chosen is clear.
I would not say that you are a theist until I know whether or not you believe in a sentient god. If so, yes, you are a theist to me, since that is the definition of the word theist that I use. If you can't say yes, then it's no, you are not a theist to me, and all non-theists, being without theism, are atheists in my formulation.
It's an elegantly simple way to view things that I have found helpful. Some on this thread consider it over-simplified, but I don't know why. It handles all contingencies clearly and easily.
On the other hand, the view of others with other formulations are often unclear to me.
Then you are not theocratic whether you are a theist or not, and you are no enemy of the things that matter to me. I really don't need to know anything more about your religious beliefs if any than that if you have any, it's not your purpose to impose them on others. I don't really understand what you believe, but I do understand what you don't believe, and that is enough.
Last edited:
I think a big reason why many people reject the idea is because it contradicts their beliefs.
There are many people - and I'm thinking mainly of certain Christians and Muslims - who think that atheism is punishable by God. This means that if being an atheist isn't a wilful act, then God would be unjust for punishing it. However, they take it as given that their God is just, so therefore atheism must be a wilful act.
Also, I think some people get so focused on monotheism that they try to define atheism in terms of rejecting one specific god (usually their own version of God with a capital G), rather than rejecting gods in general. These people usually employ a double standard: rejecting the "standard" god is enough to make a person an atheist as long as they haven't accepted any of those "lesser" gods of minority religions.
And I think sometimes it comes down to the stereotypes people have for the word "atheist:" if someone doesn't fit the baggage-laden image they think of when they hear the term, then there's a disconnect... like when people call the Pope a bachelor.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Your definition would be soft atheism. Personally, I don't even like the word atheist. I don't like being described within the contest of what I don't believe. Should we simply call all Christians apantheists?
Right (toward that particular god, at least)... but besides the problem that nobody outside of discussions about religion on the internet, nobody uses the terms "hard atheism" or "soft atheism," and on the internet, it's just as often used to describe "the sort of atheism that doesn't have any objections to theism" as it is in the sense you're using it.
It's similar to other terms that describe people by something they don't do (e.g. vegetarian, non-smoker, civilian). In that regard, I don't have a problem with the term "atheist;" there are certainly more theists in the world than there are members of the military, and "people who aren't in the military" gets its own word ("civilian").
Pantheists, though? Not nearly as significant. I can't remember the last time - if ever - I had to describe someone in terms of whether or not they were a pantheist.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Yes, the word atheism is flexible and fluid just as all words in a language. That's why definitions are so important.
I was just using pantheism as an example to show why describing a group by what they don't believe rather than what they do believe has serious drawbacks. I wasn't suggesting that we actually do it. Describing me as an atheist tells you almost nothing about what I believe or how I frame my life.
MonkeyFire
Well-Known Member
Your passive, but passive Jesus himself is theist.