Neither theist nor atheist?

[Vinayaka]

I am an observer to the atheist/theist debate. From that and discussions with my parents many years ago when I was growing up, I don't see why there can't be a middle 'undecided' option. I don't see why it has to be one or the other.

In discussions with Mom or Dad when I was questioning life, the discussion would often go something like this.

Me: So do you believe in God?
Them: No, but I suppose it's possible.
Me: So you think there is no God?
Them: I suppose that's possible too.

These conversations were rare, because it simply wasn't a topic that was ever discussed unless some inquiring teenager brought it up. So is this officially agnosticism? Or is it just indifference to religion. Certainly to me it's neither atheism nor theism.

Thoughts?

 

[crossfire]

I'm a transtheist. I don't find the whole theist/atheist construct to be very useful, especially with all of the less-than-logical stuff that grew from it which depends upon this theist/atheist construct.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I am an observer to the atheist/theist debate. From that and discussions with my parents many years ago when I was growing up, I don't see why there can't be a middle 'undecided' option. I don't see why it has to be one or the other.

In discussions with Mom or Dad when I was questioning life, the discussion would often go something like this.

Me: So do you believe in God?
Them: No, but I suppose it's possible.
Me: So you think there is no God?
Them: I suppose that's possible too.

These conversations were rare, because it simply wasn't a topic that was ever discussed unless some inquiring teenager brought it up. So is this officially agnosticism? Or is it just indifference to religion. Certainly to me it's neither atheism nor theism.

Thoughts?

In order to be on the fence, you have to have a well established foundation for plausibility.

I consider agnostics as theists whom cannot make up their minds, given the fact there are no actual examples provided which can establish plausibility in any satisfactory way.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am an observer to the atheist/theist debate. From that and discussions with my parents many years ago when I was growing up, I don't see why there can't be a middle 'undecided' option. I don't see why it has to be one or the other.

In discussions with Mom or Dad when I was questioning life, the discussion would often go something like this.

Me: So do you believe in God?
Them: No, but I suppose it's possible.
Me: So you think there is no God?
Them: I suppose that's possible too.

These conversations were rare, because it simply wasn't a topic that was ever discussed unless some inquiring teenager brought it up. So is this officially agnosticism? Or is it just indifference to religion. Certainly to me it's neither atheism nor theism.

Thoughts?

Agnosticism

 

[LuisDantas]

I am an observer to the atheist/theist debate. From that and discussions with my parents many years ago when I was growing up, I don't see why there can't be a middle 'undecided' option. I don't see why it has to be one or the other.

In discussions with Mom or Dad when I was questioning life, the discussion would often go something like this.

Me: So do you believe in God?
Them: No, but I suppose it's possible.
Me: So you think there is no God?
Them: I suppose that's possible too.

These conversations were rare, because it simply wasn't a topic that was ever discussed unless some inquiring teenager brought it up. So is this officially agnosticism? Or is it just indifference to religion. Certainly to me it's neither atheism nor theism.

Thoughts?

It is hardly indifference to religion, because it does not even touch religion as such.

It is clearly agnosticism, but it has a definite hint of apatheism as well, in that there seems to be no great anxiety to reach a definitive answer.

Much as I like ignosticism, it seems to be sitting this one off.

 

[George-ananda]

Thoughts?

I consider 'agnosticism' to be an often held position.

As for someone like me, a non-dualist (God and creation are not-two) the old western debate is not rightly put and I don't identify with any of three positions but I would be closest to Theist. My point is that we should expand the classic debate.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am an observer to the atheist/theist debate. From that and discussions with my parents many years ago when I was growing up, I don't see why there can't be a middle 'undecided' option. I don't see why it has to be one or the other.

Because theism (belief in at least one god) and atheism (lack of belief in gods) form a MECE set. Everyone belongs to exactly one of these categories.

In discussions with Mom or Dad when I was questioning life, the discussion would often go something like this.

Me: So do you believe in God?
Them: No, but I suppose it's possible.
Me: So you think there is no God?
Them: I suppose that's possible too.

Sounds to me like you were an atheist.

These conversations were rare, because it simply wasn't a topic that was ever discussed unless some inquiring teenager brought it up. So is this officially agnosticism? Or is it just indifference to religion. Certainly to me it's neither atheism nor theism.

Thoughts?

Agnosticism isn't just being on the fence about whether God exists; it's the positive assertion that existence or non-existence of gods is unknowable.

Atheism (lack of belief in gods) doesn't necessarily imply anti-theism (the assertion that gods do not exist).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I consider agnostics as theists whom cannot make up their minds

I wish I had a nickel for every time some has told me I can't make up my mind, and for any time someone has insisted I'm a theist or atheist. But it's odd how a position is based on inconclusive searches and inadequate data gets me lumped in with both groups.
I must be doing something right.

 

[Nakosis]

I am an observer to the atheist/theist debate. From that and discussions with my parents many years ago when I was growing up, I don't see why there can't be a middle 'undecided' option. I don't see why it has to be one or the other.

In discussions with Mom or Dad when I was questioning life, the discussion would often go something like this.

Me: So do you believe in God?
Them: No, but I suppose it's possible.
Me: So you think there is no God?
Them: I suppose that's possible too.

These conversations were rare, because it simply wasn't a topic that was ever discussed unless some inquiring teenager brought it up. So is this officially agnosticism? Or is it just indifference to religion. Certainly to me it's neither atheism nor theism.

Thoughts?

Whatever reasons I previously had to believe in a God I tested and found inconclusive. While there are a number of differing concept about possible gods, none can be validated beyond a reasonable doubt.

So bottom line, I have no information about any god that can be claimed with any certainty. Still people have whatever reason they have, to have faith in one concept of a God over another.

Since nothing can actually be verified one concept of god to pick to have faith in is a good as any other. IOW there really in no reason to choose one concept of god over any other. One is as likely to be wrong about it as right. I hope this makes my feelings about the arbitrariness of choosing any particular god clear.

Since there are so many concepts of god out there, it's a lot more likely that by choosing any one, one is more likely to be wrong that right. So I choose not to choose any concept of god to place faith in.

So atheist, having no concept of god which I place faith in. As I see it, placing all of the names of the different gods to believe in on a wall and blindly tossing a dart at the wall to choose a god is as equally justifiable as any other reason given to place faith in any particular god.

 

[columbus]

I consider agnostics as theists whom cannot make up their minds, given the fact there are no actual examples provided which can establish plausibility in any satisfactory way.

I realize that there are people who fit this description. But I describe myself as agnostic and it doesn't fit me.
I simply see humans as too limited and primitive to make firm truth claims about God, the supernatural, the afterlife, or any such thing. All such claims, from hard atheism to any religion, strike me as irrational. Because, while there is no evidence with much credibility, there's also doubtless more to reality than we can comprehend. That doesn't mean we cannot ever learn more, and understand more. It just means that we don't know now.

Just like we once didn't know that the earth was a tiny speck hurtling through the void of space, or that tiny beings caused infectious illnesses.

To me, agnosticism isn't really about God and all that. It's the recognition of how limited we humans and our understanding is.
Tom

 

[Vinayaka]

Agnosticism isn't just being on the fence about whether God exists; it's the positive assertion that existence or non-existence of gods is unknowable.

Thank you. I learned something new.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I realize that there are people who fit this description. But I describe myself as agnostic and it doesn't fit me.
I simply see humans as too limited and primitive to make firm truth claims about God, the supernatural, the afterlife, or any such thing. All such claims, from hard atheism to any religion, strike me as irrational. Because, while there is no evidence with much credibility, there's also doubtless more to reality than we can comprehend. That doesn't mean we cannot ever learn more, and understand more. It just means that we don't know now.

But here's the thing about this sort of "we just can't know" approach: if belief that a claim is true is justified, then this justification is within the sphere of human knowledge.

When we're talking about claims where there's no evidence for their truth and say "we can't know," we're really quibbling about the difference between:

- an unjustified fabrication that winds up being coincidentally true, and

- an unjustified fabrication that winds up being false.

Either way, we're talking about made-up nonsense and unreliable claims. For all practical purposes, it can be disregarded.

A stopped clock might be right twice a day, but no reasonable person uses a stopped clock to try to tell the time.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I wish I had a nickel for every time some has told me I can't make up my mind, and for any time someone has insisted I'm a theist or atheist. But it's odd how a position is based on inconclusive searches and inadequate data gets me lumped in with both groups.
I must be doing something right.

Yes, this, exactly.

 

[Quintessence]

There have always been other options outside if the simplistic (and to my mind relatively useless) dichotomy of "theist" and "atheist." They are not mentioned or talked about much, however, so many are simply unaware that there are terms to describe such things.

@crossfire already mentioned one - transtheism - which to some would describe me too considering how useless I find the atheist-theist dichotomy to be when it comes to asking the simplistic ontological questions about the gods.

Some have mentioned agnosticism, but this is a position regarding knowledge of the gods rather than their ontological status. It could be one's position in of itself, but it is often coupled with a position on the ontological status of gods as well.

Then there's apatheism, which I suspect many atheists would be better described as. They just do not care about the question and it is not an important one they ask in their lives. It is closer to the "lack of belief" some atheists say their identifier means.

We can add to the list deism, which depending on who you are talking to, might be conceptualized as something outside of the typical atheist-theist dichotomy. That's not something I'm going to claim to understand, though, as I've always seen deism as thoroughly theistic.

In many respects pantheism and panentheism defy the dichotomy, as one can be atheistic or theistic in orientation within these theological ideas. There's also animism, where non-human persons may or may not be characterized as gods.

 

[LuisDantas]

Because theism (belief in at least one god) and atheism (lack of belief in gods) form a MECE set. Everyone belongs to exactly one of these categories.

Is that so?

I honestly don't know that. The words themselves would imply so, but the concepts are just too fuzzy.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

I am an observer to the atheist/theist debate. From that and discussions with my parents many years ago when I was growing up, I don't see why there can't be a middle 'undecided' option. I don't see why it has to be one or the other.

In discussions with Mom or Dad when I was questioning life, the discussion would often go something like this.

Me: So do you believe in God?
Them: No, but I suppose it's possible.
Me: So you think there is no God?
Them: I suppose that's possible too.

These conversations were rare, because it simply wasn't a topic that was ever discussed unless some inquiring teenager brought it up. So is this officially agnosticism? Or is it just indifference to religion. Certainly to me it's neither atheism nor theism.

Thoughts?

Yes. You are describing Agnosticism.

Be aware that by posting your OP, and by my posting the following, there will come a mighty flood of nitpickers and religious grammar-nazis who will howl and rage about the difference between atheism and agnosticism, and they will heap up terms like “strong agnostic” or “weak atheist/theist”, and all sorts of mumbo garbage.

Forget all that.

- Theists have faith, an assertion, an attestation that some divine being exists....sans verifiable proof.
- Atheists assert/attest that since we have seen no verifiable proof, an infinite God CANNOT exist.

Period. Full-Stop. We’re done.​

I am agnostic, therefore I have no faith that a divine being exists, AND I cannot affirm that our universe is without divine intervention. I am faithless. I am agnostic.
As my sig has always read, “I don’t know.....and neither do you.”
There is no overlap, no Venn diagrams, no weak or strong.

I realize that there are people who fit this description. But I describe myself as agnostic and it doesn't fit me.
I simply see humans as too limited and primitive to make firm truth claims about God, the supernatural, the afterlife, or any such thing. All such claims, from hard atheism to any religion, strike me as irrational. Because, while there is no evidence with much credibility, there's also doubtless more to reality than we can comprehend. That doesn't mean we cannot ever learn more, and understand more. It just means that we don't know now.

Just like we once didn't know that the earth was a tiny speck hurtling through the void of space, or that tiny beings caused infectious illnesses.

To me, agnosticism isn't really about God and all that. It's the recognition of how limited we humans and our understanding is.
Tom

This is a well spoken posting, I added the emphasis on “now”.
As an agnostic, I agree that we don’t know. We MIGHT never know. But billions of years from now, someone, somewhere in the universe MIGHT just stumble (or research) into some verifiable “Here He is everybody! Come on over and meet Him!” kind of singularity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There have always been other options outside if the simplistic (and to my mind relatively useless) dichotomy of "theist" and "atheist." They are not mentioned or talked about much, however, so many are simply unaware that there are terms to describe such things.

They also generally deal with separate questions.

@crossfire already mentioned one - transtheism - which to some would describe me too considering how useless I find the atheist-theist dichotomy to be when it comes to asking the simplistic ontological questions about the gods.

"I find the atheist/theist dichotomy to be useless" does not imply "I'm neither a theist nor an atheist.

Some have mentioned agnosticism, but this is a position regarding knowledge of the gods rather than their ontological status. It could be one's position in of itself, but it is often coupled with a position on the ontological status of gods as well.

What would you say agnosticism is when it's "one's position in and of itself?"

Then there's apatheism, which I suspect many atheists would be better described as. They just do not care about the question and it is not an important one they ask in their lives. It is closer to the "lack of belief" some atheists say their identifier means.

There's nothing about apatheism that's incompatible with atheism.

And just so we're clear: saying that atheism is a lack of belief in gods doesn't imply that atheist don't have any beliefs about gods. If someone explicitly rejected the existence of all gods, he'd still be an atheist; it's just that the fact he's an atheist would merely be because he's not a theist; it wouldn't be because of any other beliefs he holds (e.g. that no gods exist).

We can add to the list deism, which depending on who you are talking to, might be conceptualized as something outside of the typical atheist-theist dichotomy. That's not something I'm going to claim to understand, though, as I've always seen deism as thoroughly theistic.

I agree: someone who believes in a god - even in a non-interventionist god - is not someone who lacks belief in gods.

In many respects pantheism and panentheism defy the dichotomy, as one can be atheistic or theistic in orientation within these theological ideas.

I don't see how they defy the dichotomy. Pantheism and panentheism are both clearly subsets of theism.

There's also animism, where non-human persons may or may not be characterized as gods.

So then an animist is a theist if they consider those non-human persons to be gods and an atheist otherwise.

 

[PureX]

I am an observer to the atheist/theist debate. From that and discussions with my parents many years ago when I was growing up, I don't see why there can't be a middle 'undecided' option. I don't see why it has to be one or the other.

In discussions with Mom or Dad when I was questioning life, the discussion would often go something like this.

Me: So do you believe in God?
Them: No, but I suppose it's possible.
Me: So you think there is no God?
Them: I suppose that's possible too.

These conversations were rare, because it simply wasn't a topic that was ever discussed unless some inquiring teenager brought it up. So is this officially agnosticism? Or is it just indifference to religion. Certainly to me it's neither atheism nor theism.

Thoughts?

That's called 'undecided', or in more philosophical terms, 'undetermined'. If it's 'undetermined due to a lack of sufficient knowledge/information', then it's called agnosticism.

It is very possible to be both agnostic and theist, or agnostic and atheist, if the determination each makes regarding the existence of God/gods is based on something other than sufficient knowledge/information. For example, one might choose to be a theist based on the positive experience they gain from doing so, rather then on any requisite knowledge or information leading them to conclude that God/gods exist. Likewise, an atheist might choose to assume that no gods exist out of pure bias, rather than on any actual knowledge of such being the case. Though why one would choose to close their mind to the possibility, for no reason, is a bit of a mystery.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

To me, agnosticism isn't really about God and all that. It's the recognition of how limited we humans and our understanding is.

Yup. We know so very little about ourselves, the Earth, this solar system, and every time we move up we know exponentially less. The universe does appear too random and chaotic to support the notion of a personal deity that intervenes in our lives and listens to prayer, but at the same time it's a fact we are prone to not even interpreting stimuli and the world around us correctly. And we are still hung up on the idea that any creator that might be must inherently be god. We know so very little, but we project ourselves onto everything.
Overall I very much agree with Carl Sagan that there just really isn't enough evidence either way, and I wholeheartedly agree with Niel DeGrasse Tyson that there are better and more important and more fulfilling things to pursue. And reality and the laws that govern the universe are confusing enough, while life is precious enough. Do we really need to add any more to it all? Gods or no gods, we'll never know with our current knowledge and what does this presence or absence entail?

 

[columbus]

But here's the thing about this sort of "we just can't know" approach: if belief that a claim is true is justified, then this justification is within the sphere of human knowledge.

I don't understand your issue. The truth claim I am making is well within the sphere of human knowledge.
Humans are very limited. In our perceptions, our mental processes and all that. We do not, possibly cannot, understand why the universe exists or we are are around to perceive it(however dimly).
That's why I don't believe in religion. I am an agnostic deist, and my world view is indistinguishable from soft atheism for all practical purposes.

So, I usually describe myself as atheist. It simplifies discussions about religious notions. You can't slip a sheet of Bible paper between my world views and atheism.
Tom