-
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!
Non-sentient creator deity
- Thread starter Dei Ty
- Start date
Sounds like that is what atheism is.
Satans_Serrated_Edge
Deicidal
Negative.
An atheist might believe that, or anything else under the sun for that matter. To be an 'atheist' is simply to not be convinced of the premise that a god or gods must exist. That's it, anything else is fair game.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Wrong..
theists don't have to believe a deity ''must'' exist, they only have to believe that a deity does exist/in some form.
theism is very broad, and 'atheism' therefore has to be broad in it's disbelief.
Atheism does not allow for anything regarded as any type of theism, to be believed.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Deism? (If I'm not mistaken) is not sentient (has emotions or personal?).
I don't know any other god-religion that doesn't have a personal/sentient god. Unless I got the definition wrong.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Agreed, Deism is closest
You're going to have to elaborate on what you mean by "sentient."
I mean, for various flavors of Paganism, the gods are basically personifications of various "impersonal" and "non-sentient" aspects of the universe in the modern, secular understanding. But they also aren't "creators" in the sense they talk about in, say, Christianity. I guess I really don't know how to approach answering this question. "Sentient" is a nebulous word, and calling something "sentient" seems a matter of interpretation or opinion.
I mean, for various flavors of Paganism, the gods are basically personifications of various "impersonal" and "non-sentient" aspects of the universe in the modern, secular understanding. But they also aren't "creators" in the sense they talk about in, say, Christianity. I guess I really don't know how to approach answering this question. "Sentient" is a nebulous word, and calling something "sentient" seems a matter of interpretation or opinion.
Satans_Serrated_Edge
Deicidal
Those words are synonymous. If you prefer the other, best to you.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Those words are synonymous? How? ''must'' indicates some reason for the existence, does it not?
It's been my understanding that deism is a theological position, not a religion.
Satans_Serrated_Edge
Deicidal
In this context, yes. Everything that exists must exist, or else it doesn't.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Not a problem however 'Deism' is listed, under 'non-revealed Religions', on the forum
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
^
Notice how in the original statement, you put 'must', before 'exist'.In this context, yes. Everything that exists must exist, or else it doesn't.
In your explanation, you could not do that /per argument,
you wrote 'that exists, must exist'. You changed the inference of meaning
buddhist
Well-Known Member
Within my personal interpretation of early Buddhism, that is what Samsara is. IMO, Samsara is Creator-Creation all rolled into one, and is not sentient itself, being infinite.
Satans_Serrated_Edge
Deicidal
No I didn't. Same exact context.
I believe hotdogs must exist, because I've eaten more than a few.
Anyway, while you chase that red herring down, I'll just reiterate - 'atheist' just means lacking one specific belief. The word does not speak to what one does or might believe.
Honestly it's always struck me as a bit strange that we have a word for it at all. I mean, I also don't believe in fairies. Where is the special word for not believing in fairies?
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
That's one tenet of the atheist belief system yes, but I wouldn't call it a religion- that comparison is a bit unfair to real religions!
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
lacking one belief, but i wouldn't call it ''specific''. It's really broad, actually
I think that the word began as a contextual 'argument' label, of some sort. Agreed, it is strange
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Please be so kind as to reveal the rest of the "Atheist Tenets".
Yeah.... I'd just like to remind folks what the topic of the OP is (which isn't yet another debate about what atheism is)... and that this isn't a debate area. That is all.
VioletVortex
Well-Known Member
If the "deity" is non-sentient, it is not technically a deity, rather it is a force. However, it can be personified as a deity. I think that the god's are personification of force - that are conscious in their own respect.
While I don't know of any religions where the creator is non sentient, I do know of a few that believe in forces of nature. Many Satanists and Pagans of various subdivisions believe that, and they personify them as gods.
A believer in the big bang could argue that the proton and what struck it and caused the explosion are male and female "deities", and when the explosion occurred, they gave their "lives" to the universe, and became part of it, which is essentially a more scientific variant of pantheism.
While I don't know of any religions where the creator is non sentient, I do know of a few that believe in forces of nature. Many Satanists and Pagans of various subdivisions believe that, and they personify them as gods.
A believer in the big bang could argue that the proton and what struck it and caused the explosion are male and female "deities", and when the explosion occurred, they gave their "lives" to the universe, and became part of it, which is essentially a more scientific variant of pantheism.