Neither a Theist nor an Atheist Be?

[wandering peacefully]

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?

Aren't theists usually members of Abrahamic religions? Doesn't it only concern questions about that particular Western God concept? Do practicing Eastern religions use the term theism? If not, there are many people who are not theists or a-theists. I am asking because I don't really know. Would unbeliever and believer/practitioner be more accurate description of eastern religious labels?

Anyway, you either believe gods exist or don't believe gods exist. I don't know how you could be both. You could be uncertain of either position but I don't think you could be both at the same time.

 

[Mestemia]

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.

Four.
Hetero
homo
Bi
A

So no, not an either or option.
Also irrelevant to the theist/atheist dichotomy.

 

[Heyo]

Aren't theists usually members of Abrahamic religions?

Not only. Judaism and it's sects Christianity and Islam are considered mono-theistic (with a henotheistic background). The Nordic/Germanic, Greek and Roman religions are all polytheistic and very much western.

Doesn't it only concern questions about that particular Western God concept? Do practicing Eastern religions use the term theism? If not, there are many people who are not theists or a-theists. I am asking because I don't really know. Would unbeliever and believer/practitioner be more accurate description of eastern religious labels?

While Hinduism is just another polytheistic religion, other eastern religions don't really fit into our western mold. You could call Buddhism a zero-theistic religion, with all the characteristics of a religion but no god. And animism is questionable as the spirits don't really fit in or out of a god definition (which we don't have anyway).

Anyway, you either believe gods exist or don't believe gods exist. I don't know how you could be both. You could be uncertain of either position but I don't think you could be both at the same time.

(Dis-)believing in gods is not a position without a proper definition of the term "god".

 

[wandering peacefully]

Not only. Judaism and it's sects Christianity and Islam are considered mono-theistic (with a henotheistic background). The Nordic/Germanic, Greek and Roman religions are all polytheistic and very much western.

While Hinduism is just another polytheistic religion, other eastern religions don't really fit into our western mold. You could call Buddhism a zero-theistic religion, with all the characteristics of a religion but no god. And animism is questionable as the spirits don't really fit in or out of a god definition (which we don't have anyway).

(Dis-)believing in gods is not a position without a proper definition of the term "god".

Thank you

 

[lukethethird]

Neither a Theist nor an Atheist Be?
Sounds like someone that doesn't give a crap either way.

 

[Valjean]

From a Hindu perspective it seems easy enough to be both, though perhaps not at the same level at the same time.
Premise: There are levels of reality, perceived from different levels of consciousness. Each is "real" while you're inhabiting them, but become unreal when you leave.

When asleep you might dream of unicorns or Thor. These are real -- in sleep-state. You created them in your mind.

If you wake up, the unicorns are gone. They're not real in this new level and you no longer believe in them.
Now you're living in -- that is, dreaming in -- a new reality: of cars, trees and computers. You've created these in your mind, just as you did the unicorns, and you believe in them.

But again, if you wake up to another level, the cars and trees may be gone, and you'll no longer believe in them -- just like the previously real unicorns or trees.
Reality is all in your head.

Right now I'm in waking-state. I'm 'dreaming' a computer in front of me. I'm not dreaming a god -- though conceivably I might.
Perhaps some people do create gods, but, of course, these are just subjectively real -- like cars.


Then there's another way to consider the question:
Most Hindus are theists, but many, especially Vedantis, believe, intellectually, that the gods they create as spiritual aids are only subjectively real, and will disappear as soon as their use successfully wakes their users into the next level.

 

[SalixIncendium]

From a Hindu perspective it seems easy enough to be both, though perhaps not at the same level at the same time.
Premise: There are levels of reality, perceived from different levels of consciousness. Each is "real" while you're inhabiting them, but become unreal when you leave.

When asleep you might dream of unicorns or Thor. These are real -- in sleep-state. You created them in your mind.

If you wake up, the unicorns are gone. They're not real in this new level and you no longer believe in them.
Now you're living in -- that is, dreaming in -- a new reality: of cars, trees and computers. You've created these in your mind, just as you did the unicorns, and you believe in them.

But again, if you wake up to another level, the cars and trees may be gone, and you'll no longer believe in them -- just like the previously real unicorns or trees.
Reality is all in your head.

Right now I'm in waking-state. I'm 'dreaming' a computer in front of me. I'm not dreaming a god -- though conceivably I might.
Perhaps some people do create gods, but, of course, these are just subjectively real -- like cars.


Then there's another way to consider the question:
Most Hindus are theists, but many, especially Vedantis, believe, intellectually, that the gods they create as spiritual aids are only subjectively real, and will disappear as soon as their use successfully wakes their users into the next level.

Well said.

 

[Ayjaydee]

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 dont know what actively believes means

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

However you define it, we are missing one category. If theist is the umbrella term, what is the opposite to deist under the umbrella?

If you tell me what you mean by "opposite to deist," then I'll probably be able to tell you how to describe such a person.

And if theist and deist are opposites under an umbrella, what's the name for that?

Why on Earth would we consider theists and deists to be "opposites?"

I like to talk about believers as the umbrella and deist and theist as opposites.

But believers in what? Gods. And "theist" is the term for a believer in one or more gods.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Except the Agnostics, of course. I think of Agnosticism as the stronger position - if you can call atheism a position at all.

At this point it may be a semantic argument. Atheism is said to be a large tent. One does not have to say "there is no god", one only needs a lack of belief in a god or gods. If as an agnostic you lack that sort of belief you could claim to be an atheist too. But no one will try to force that label on you.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But no one will try to force that label on you.

They've tried to force it on me so much that I pretty much quit using labels so people have to ask and prod into my views instead of making assumptions that squeeze me into their own worldviews of how things ought to be. Niel Degrasse Tyson has himself expressed this being an issue, one which he doesn't have the energy or desire to endlessly correct people about - but yet people keep saying he is an atheist despite the fact he himself does not and repeatedly said he is not.
It also goes both ways and I've had numerous theists attempt to claim me as one of their own. Sort of like how both camps try to claim Einstein, even though he himself did not count himself as either.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They've tried to force it on me so much that I pretty much quit using labels so people have to ask and prod into my views instead of making assumptions that squeeze me into their own worldviews of how things ought to be. Niel Degrasse Tyson has himself expressed this being an issue, one which he doesn't have the energy or desire to endlessly correct people about - but yet people keep saying he is an atheist despite the fact he himself does not and repeatedly said he is not.
It also goes both ways and I've had numerous theists attempt to claim me as one of their own. Sort of like how both camps try to claim Einstein, even though he himself did not count himself as either.

Einstein was not a hardcore atheist. His one statement against atheism that I know of was in objecting to the atheists that aver "there is no god". He would probably accept the modern "I do not believe in any gods" atheism.

As to Tyson, he too grew up in an age where atheist was both a pejorative and a description of hard core atheists. If he does not want that label he need not use it.

You on the other hand have no choice. The secret unbaptism is at midnight

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Aren't theists usually members of Abrahamic religions?

People in general are usually members of Abrahamic religions.

Seriously: Christians and Muslims make up more than half of the world's population.

Doesn't it only concern questions about that particular Western God concept?

Nope.

Do practicing Eastern religions use the term theism?

Eastern religions generally use non-English terms to describe their concepts.

If not, there are many people who are not theists or a-theists.

No such thing.

I am asking because I don't really know. Would unbeliever and believer/practitioner be more accurate description of eastern religious labels?

Probably not. Some religions emphasize orthodoxy; some emphasize orthopraxy. This idea that religion equals belief seems very western-specific (or Protestant-specific, if we want to put a finer point on it).


Anyway, you either believe gods exist or don't believe gods exist. I don't know how you could be both. You could be uncertain of either position but I don't think you could be both at the same time.[/QUOTE]

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Einstein was not a hardcore atheist. His one statement against atheism that I know of was in objecting to the atheists that aver "there is no god". He would probably accept the modern "I do not believe in any gods" atheism.

False:
"Your quedtion is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not now I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds."
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."
"This firm belief, a belief bound up with a deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God. In common parlance this may be described as '"pantheistic."'

As to Tyson, he too grew up in an age where atheist was both a pejorative and a description of hard core atheists. If he does not want that label he need not use it.

The point was that he doesn't, but others try to force it upon him. He gives his reasons, he says otherwise, but people still insist he is an atheist.

You on the other hand have no choice. The secret unbaptism is at midnight

I can't be accurately described as an atheist. Nor a theist, as that typically is used to describe those who believe in a personal deity.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Not sure. Is samadhi the same as comatose?

I wasn't familiar with the word "samadhi", and now that you've brought it to my attention, I'm not inclined to think that it is "the same as comatose."
But, ... who knows what stvdv will say.

 

[Quintessence]

I would consider anyone who recognizes, worships, reveres, or works with deities a theist.

So do I, and yet not everyone is of the same opinion. I recall some rather frustrating conversations where the other party would refuse to consider me a theist because I wasn't worshiping a singular, omnimax deity. Or a supernatural deity. Or whatever other criteria they want to insist that all gods "must" have.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Typically such a person is in one of three categories:

1. Agnostic
2. Pantheist
3. Indifferent about religion

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Nope.

Not necessarily. In many Asian countries such as Japan, the term/concept "theist" is very typically applied to Abrahamics. By their own of understandings, they would consider themselves atheist with the Western "atheist/theist" dichotomy. However, by that same standard, we would consider them theists given the nature of their traditional beliefs (such as Shinto and Buddhism). The Tao also eludes this concept of "atheist vs theist." But that is literally the way, that life and the universe just does not care to produce binary results and concepts. Even something that seems so simple as "life" and "alive" can become very grey and colorful even, and make it apparent that what we might think isn't so necessarily either is or is not. We first have to define what is, and that alone is simply nothing that can be approached with a "yes/no" question or perspective.

 

[Skwim]

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

Some say he's a cowardly atheist. But there is a recognized distinction.

An atheist doesn't believe in the existence of god(s). He says "God does not exist." Although more and more atheists are beginning to say, "I don't believe god exists because of insufficient evidence," leaving room for the possibility of his existence.

An agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves in a god or religious doctrine. He says "I don't know if god exists or not." And in a sense he could be considered a soft atheist; like the atheist he lacks a belief in god.

.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

can't be accurately described as an atheist. Nor a theist, as that typically is used to describe those who believe in a personal deity.

What is it about you that makes you not an atheist?

What is it about you that makes you not a theist?