Neither a theist nor an atheist: is this position sustainable in Hindusim

[Shantanu]

I have adjusted my Profile details to satya-advaitist from satya-advaitic theist for reasons given here:
Whether God exists or not is immaterial

I started off as a theist, but at one time then I used to be an atheist, then I became a satya-advaitic atheist followed by saty-advaitic theist.

Now it is just satya-advaitist.

Is there any evidence in Hinduism for being neither a theist nor an atheist position?

 

[Vinayaka]

I have adjusted my Profile details to satya-advaitist from satya-advaitic theist for reasons given here:
Whether God exists or not is immaterial

I started off as a theist, but at one time then I used to be an atheist, then I became a satya-advaitic atheist followed by saty-advaitic theist.

Now it is just satya-advaitist.

Is there any evidence in Hinduism for being neither a theist nor an atheist position?

Is Brahman God, or not? I think it's perfectly acceptable to declare either 'I don't know' or 'I don't care.'

 

[Aupmanyav]

True. How many know Brahman?

 

[Jainarayan]

Is there any evidence in Hinduism for being neither a theist nor an atheist position?

It sounds like agnosticism, neither belief nor non-belief in (a) God, being unsure of God's existence and unprovable/unknowable... one blog post I found: Tat Tvam Asi - Thou art That..!

 

[George-ananda]

Is there any evidence in Hinduism for being neither a theist nor an atheist position?

I think now we are getting into tricky wordplay. I think in our western society 'atheism' is often assumed to be 'materialistic-atheism'. I am definitely not a party member to that school of thought.

I am an advaita pantheist (certainly a major Hindu school of thought) but when talking with western people I would identify certainly with the 'theist' term. In adavaita, All is God/Brahman. That sounds like theism.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

In English, "atheist" and "theist" are contradictories, like coloured and colourless, not contraries like old and young. By definition, you can't be both. But there are two problems here when Hindus are talking English.

The first is that religious writing in English, even by able professional philosophers, unthinkingly equates "god" with the Christian concept. "Theism" becomes believing in something like the Christian God. Since Brahman is not the same, you feel that you can't be a theist.

The second problem is that atheists in the West all deny any spiritual dimension to the universe. They will no more accept the existence of Brahman than they will accept the Christian God. If you call yourself an atheist, you find yourself in very undesirable company.

I understand what Aupmanyav means when he says he's an atheist, but most people in this forum outside this DIR will be baffled!

I suppose the only solution is to avoid both words — or to stop using English. I hope you won't do the latter!

I'm safe: I know there are gods, but regarding Brahman I'm an agnostic!

 

[Shantanu]

When one says something is 'God' one has to define what is meant by 'God'. If one cannot define 'God', there is no point is saying that one is a theist or an atheist. It is a false description of what a person is. Similarly if one cannot define 'Brahman' one cannot say one is an advaitist who believes in Brahman. or Atman for that matter.

I had an idea of what God should be like and my experience was that the Entity I tried to correspond with was nothing like what I expected a God to be, so I am not a theist or an atheist.

@AJay defines Brahman as Consciousness so he has an understanding of what he is relating to, in terms of his meditation or awareness. Personally, I have no evidence that Brahman is Consciousness either. So I do not subscribe to this classical advaita in the way ajay0 understands it.

@Aupmanyav defines Brahman as physical energy and he is non-dual with this entity so he has his own advaita.

I only know the 'universe' the Hindu term for which I feel is Brahman; of which I am an indivisible part of so my philosophy is to be at one with the universe, as the only truth that is knowable. This raises the question of what are the properties of the universe. I do not know yet. Does it have consciousness that is protective towards the seeker of truths and practitioners of truth accommodation and thereby generates awareness and security for them? Possibly. Is that the definition of God? Who knows?

I am therefore a person who describes himself as a satya-advaitist, namely some one who wishes to be at one with the truth he discovers and lives by that truth in terms of truth accommodation.

 

[LuisDantas]

Is there any evidence in Hinduism for being neither a theist nor an atheist position?

Are you aware of ignosticism and of apatheism? Do you have any particular stances towards either?

 

[Shantanu]

Are you aware of ignosticism and of apatheism? Do you have any particular stances towards either?

Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because the term god has no coherent and unambiguous definition. That is what I just wrote above.

Apatheism (/ˌæpəˈθiːɪzəm/, a portmanteau of apathy and theism) is the attitude of apathy towards the existence or non-existence of god(s). It is more of an attitude rather than a belief, claim, or belief system.

I am not apathetic to any question. All questions have to be addressed by a satya-advaitist. I just have no concrete proof of the existence of any entity, but neither do I discount that that proof may yet be produced to me if a God by any definition truly exists.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I understand what Aupmanyav means when he says he's an atheist, but most people in this forum outside this DIR will be baffled!

I have confused many in Hinduism DIR itself.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Are you aware of ignosticism and of apatheism? Do you have any particular stances towards either?

That is the view of the heterogenous schools - Charvak, possibly Lokayat, Ajivakas (possibly, because I do not know exactly what their stance was), Jainism and Buddhism.

 

[Shantanu]

The most important thing is to come off God completely: there should not be even a flicker of thought to God in worship, thanks-giving or even the acknowledgement of His presence. One should just get on with one's life of wishing to survive oblivious of God. That means He may exist but I am unconcerned about Him.