Neither a Theist nor an Atheist Be?

[Ouroboros]

It's not that your definition of "god" is wrong, but that "pantheist" is a misnomer (not your fault). Pantheists should be called pandeists since their god is more a deos (non-personal god) than a theos (personal god) - and therefore, using the definition atheist = not a theist, pantheists are atheists.

Well, since deo is just the Latin word for God while theo is the Greek word for God, I'm not sure the personal vs non-personal definitions apply. The problem with these labels is that they're fluid. The definitions of what "theos" was in the old Greek philosophical landscape we just as diverse as it is today. One of the earliest ones, Heraclitus is considered by many to be one of the first pantheists.

Also, the term was coined a long time before the idea of separating the terms existed:

pantheism (n.)
"the belief or metaphysical doctrine that God and the universe are identical" (implying a denial of the personality of God), 1732, from pantheist (n.), which was coined 1705 by Irish deist John Toland (1670-1722), from Greek pan- "all" (see pan-) + -theism. Toland's word was borrowed into French, which from it formed panthéisme (1712) which returned to English as pantheism "the doctrine that all is god" in 1732 (there is no evidence that Toland himself used pantheism).



By 1895, the "Century Dictionary's" editors wrote that "Pantheism is essentially unchristian; and the word implies rather the reprobation of the speaker than any very definite opinion." Greek pantheios meant "common to all gods" (see pantheon). Other words used at various times for similar notions include panentheism, "philosophy founded on the notion that all things are in God" (1874), from German (1828), coined by Karl Christian Friedrich Krause (1781-1832).

(source: pantheism | Origin and meaning of pantheism by Online Etymology Dictionary)

There's also the term "panentheism", which is slightly different, and I'm probably more like that, but it confuses people. The terms you're using, they're always reflected upon and understood differently between people, so I just try to keep it simple.

 

[SalixIncendium]

It's not that your definition of "god" is wrong, but that "pantheist" is a misnomer (not your fault). Pantheists should be called pandeists since their god is more a deos (non-personal god) than a theos (personal god) - and therefore, using the definition atheist = not a theist, pantheists are atheists.

I disagree. I think deists recognize a god that is transcendent and not immanent. Traditionally, pantheism is quite the opposite.

 

[Heyo]

There is the principle of the excluded middle in Aristotelian logic. So, if atheist is defined as "not theist", you automatically belong to either the one or the other. But not everyone accept the definition of atheist as a negation of theist and not everyone accepts binary logic as useful for the discussion.

 

[Ouroboros]

There is the principle of the excluded middle in Aristotelian logic. So, if atheist is defined as "not theist", you automatically belong to either the one or the other. But not everyone accept the definition of atheist as a negation of theist and not everyone accepts binary logic as useful for the discussion.

Language seems to be more in the category of fuzzy logic or even analog, so binary logic on terms that relate to non-known subjects (like God) is probably not useful in the end.

When it comes to solving higher math, there's this term my son kept on repeating: "Is it well defined?" Meaning, if you don't have a clear understanding of each and individual part, nailing the answer might be impossible.

 

[Heyo]

I disagree. I think deists recognize a god that is transcendent and not immanent. Traditionally, pantheism is quite the opposite.

Deism and pantheism are opposites on the transcendent/immanent axis but both are non-personal. That is what makes them both a-theist.

 

[halbhh]

"There is, however, no "not atheist nor theist".

Well, really, and it's not any exaggeration at all, I was definitely in that category for many years, very definitely not a believer and not a disbeliever. I had been an atheist for quite a while (maybe 10-15 years), and then it became more............different.

Here's something sorta like where I was finally, after enough years, going into my mid 30s and no longer interested in being 'atheist': more....curious. Seeking that subtle something we might sense at times. My good friend in those years when we would talk about it had something he imagined and called it the Universal Sound Key; he would 'send prayers' to people under stress in other countries, but he did not believe in God. Eventually I thought of what is often called the "Universal Consciousness" or such. Some will recognize this as what Joseph Campbell called the "perennial philosophy".

Another wording, which I liked better later on (but still the perennial philosophy) is the well known "All things are One" (or what is well known rather is the general concept, instead of a certain wording).

This was not believing in God, and it was also not being an atheist. Or perhaps you'd prefer to say it is believing in God (because you like that better), and in a subtle way, perhaps.

 

[Heyo]

Language seems to be more in the category of fuzzy logic or even analog, so binary logic on terms that relate to non-known subjects (like God) is probably not useful in the end.

When it comes to solving higher math, there's this term my son kept on repeating: "Is it well defined?" Meaning, if you don't have a clear understanding of each and individual part, nailing the answer might be impossible.

That's why I am not the greatest fan of Aristotelian logic, at least for complex topics. In Aristotelian logic, anything you say about gods or religion should be considered a non-statement due to lack of definition.

 

[Heyo]

I just try to keep it simple.

That is a good principle and it works well in most circumstances. The OP's question, however, goes exactly to the fringes where the definitions have to be precise and simplicity isn't helping. It is typical "it depends" question and it depends on many factors and each one can switch the answer.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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?

Yes, it's true.

It's true because of what "theist" and "atheist" mean. The two terms form a MECE set: everyone belongs to exactly one category. Nobody belongs to both and nobody belongs to neither.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But what if you don't know what "god" is even supposed to be? There are so may opinions of what this "god" is or isn't. So if you believe in it or not, it's more evidence for what you think god is or isn't.

If you can't conceive of "god" at all, then you certainly can't conceive of "god" as existing.

Such a person can't be a theist, so they must be an atheist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You make a very good point here. I stopped using the word 'god' simply because whenever I did, someone would come along and anthropomorphize it or assign qualities it doesn't have. There is a tendency for many, even those who consider themselves to be atheists, to default to the God of Abraham when someone uses the word.

It's often the case that the question of whether a person is a theist depends entirely on what they consider "god" to be.

For instance, two people can both believe that the Sun exists, but if one considers the Sun to be a god and the other one doesn't, then the one is a theist and the other is an atheist, even if they agree on every factual question about what exists and doesn't.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Surely that's a false dichotomy, isn't it? What is an agnostic?

It's a dichotomy, but it's not false, since "atheist" really just means "someone who isn't a theist."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's not that your definition of "god" is wrong, but that "pantheist" is a misnomer (not your fault). Pantheists should be called pandeists since their god is more a deos (non-personal god) than a theos (personal god) - and therefore, using the definition atheist = not a theist, pantheists are atheists.

Deists (believers in a non-interventionist creator god) are a subset of theists (believers in gods in general).

 

[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?

I'm transtheistic. I don't find the theism/atheism dichotomy very useful.

 

[Terry Sampson]

How offensive of them.

Spectrum of theistic probability - Wikipedia

 

[bobhikes]

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?

How many sexual orientations are there. Is there only an either or option. You can label.yourself anything but your a unique individual why would you want to limit yourself. Don't let others label you and don't label yourself. Neither an Atheist or theist be.

 

[Salvador]

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?

Please allow me to exclaim the God hypothesis is neither verifiable nor falsifiable; ergo, such conjecture like God-did-it or God-will-do-it is unknowable.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Both Theist and Atheist are concepts in the mind
Those who are beyond the mind, are neither

Uhhh, do you think it's possible for a living human to be "beyond the mind" in this world and not be comatose?

 

[Heyo]

Deists (believers in a non-interventionist creator god) are a subset of theists (believers in gods in general).

However you define it, we are missing one category. If theist is the umbrella term, what is the opposite to deist under the umbrella? And if theist and deist are opposites under an umbrella, what's the name for that? I like to talk about believers as the umbrella and deist and theist as opposites.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Uhhh, do you think it's possible for a living human to be "beyond the mind" in this world and not be comatose?

Not sure. Is samadhi the same as comatose?