Non-Theist

[Aupmanyav]

I think it is OK to express one's views in an internet discussion forum. Since I am a strong atheist (deny the possibility of existence of God/Gods/Goddesses), my posts reflect that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Again, why do I have to be familiar with all centipedes to say I disbelieve (metaphorically) in centipedes? I've yet to hear the argument.

If you think I said this, then go back and read my posts more carefully.

I don't think that you're approaching this discussion in good faith, so I'm not prepared to put a lot of effort into correcting your misrepresentations or misunderstandings.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am not making up my own definitions of the words. I am just using other sources of the words. But if it makes you feel better to think they are solely mine feel free to think so.

Regards
Mikkel

I've heard them from you and like 2 or 3 other internet deists. I've never heard them from someone who wasn't a deist trying to set themselves apart from other god-believers.

Language evolves and meanings shift, but what you're trying to do is steer these changes to suit your own agenda. It's a bit dishonest.

 

[stvdv]

How does someone do that, exactly?

Atheists told me "disbelief (lack of belief) in all the gods" ... they never told me how they did this "disbelieve in all the gods" practically
My guess, they never think about god(s), unless someone brings it up, then quickly they remember "no, I still lack belief" ... makes most sense.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Atheists told me "disbelief (lack of belief) in all the gods" ... they never told me how they did this "disbelieve in all the gods" practically

Sorry - I don't trust you to express someone else's position accurately... especially not someone you disagree with.

My guess, they never think about god(s), unless someone brings it up, then quickly they remember "no, I still lack belief" ... makes most sense.

How is that the "active disbelief in all gods" you described earlier? Not thinking about gods seems pretty passive to me.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I've heard them from you and like 2 or 3 other internet deists. I've never heard them from someone who wasn't a deist trying to set themselves apart from other god-believers.

Language evolves and meanings shift, but what you're trying to do is steer these changes to suit your own agenda. It's a bit dishonest.

I am not even a proper deist in some sense.
My God is not prefect in any sense. My God is a limited god, and only meet the bare requirements of being a creator god. She is fair in that she created this natural universe so it is knowable.
I am a naturalist as to what this world is. I don't believe in souls, reincarnation, Heaven, Hell, objective morality, objective authority and what not.
I accept that you use another definition of theism, deism and other gods than those 2 categories, than I do. I am just pointing out that e.g. the philosophical notion of a first unmoved mover doesn't rely fit within some versions of theism and deism. Whether that is normal or not, I don't view that as a problem. I am used to being not normal in some sense. I have 4 diagnoses in the psychiatric sense and I in some sense fall outside normal, yet I am still here.

We are playing limited cognitive relativism and cognitive diversity. How you deal with that as you is something you do. I deal with it apparently differently as I do it. I am as honest about that as it goes.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[stvdv]

Sorry - I don't trust you to express someone else's position accurately... especially not someone you disagree with.


How is that the "active disbelief in all gods" you described earlier? Not thinking about gods seems pretty passive to me.

I don't believe in God (as how other people define God). So, don't be too sure, I disagree with them (Atheists)

I believe 1+1=2, but I don't busy myself all day remembering this "fact". So, I am passive in this, but I do active believe in it.

 

[stvdv]

Sorry - I don't trust you to express someone else's position accurately

No need to be sorry.
No need to trust my opinion, even better "do not trust my opinion at all", just stick to your own, much safer (again just my opinion...don't trust it)

 

[stvdv]

Sorry - I don't trust you to express someone else's position accurately... especially not someone you disagree with.

I was speaking about Atheism, not about someone else his position. Just my opinion/view of Atheism
I am glad, I had this Hindu education, that all are free to create their own version of whatever they believe (or don't believe)
I never feel any trust of distrust if others think 180 degrees different about how I view things

And by the way, it was you who tried to lay the word "accurate" into my mouth
And now you try to use the word "accurate" you tried to lay in my mouth, against me
What kind of game is it, that you are playing?
If you have a problem, or a question, then just ask me? Way easier I think.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Not thinking about gods seems pretty passive to me.

Gods have been thought about and rejected. That also rejects the theist paraphernalia, prophets / sons / messengers / manifestations / mahdis from God / Allah; soul, heaven, hell, judgment, deliverance. But thinking does not stop here. How did this universe came about? From where did it arise? Where it is heading to? How did RNA changed into DNA? Etc. Therefore, it is not a passive thought, it never stops, is always active. Actually belief in God is terribly passive. There is your God / Allah, his son / Messenger, and your books. Then, full stop. It was so in 3rd or 7th Century, it is so now, and it will always be so in future.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Gods have been thought about and rejected. That also rejects the thei8st paraphernalia, prophets / sons / messengers / manifestations / mahdis from God / Allah; soul, heaven, hell, judgment, deliverance. But thinking does not stop here. How did this universe came about? From where did it arise? Where it is heading to? How did RNA changed into DNA? Etc. Therefore, it is not a passive thought, it never stops, is always active. Actually belief in God is terribly passive. There is your God / Allah, his son / Messenger, and your books. Then, full stop. It was so in 3rd or 7th Century, it is so now, and it will always be so in future.

All Gods are not that God/Allah and even for this God/Allah there are different interpretations, some allowing for science.
As to how this universe came about, that is not certain that it is answerable by science.

As usual your own philosophy/religion colors your view.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[oldbadger]

So, non-theist is an interesting self description.

However, what is the difference between a non-theist and an atheist?

Yes

Definition of nontheist
: a person who does not believe that there is a god or gods : a person who is not a believer in theism

Hang on......
A Theist believes in an interested, intervening or aware God.
Yes?

A Deist believes in an uninterested non-intervening unaware God,
Yes?

And so a Deist is a non-theist who believes in a Deity.
Yes?

So your proposal fails there, before we get to atheist.
Because a Deist is a non-theist.

 

[Aupmanyav]

As to how this universe came about, that is not certain that it is answerable by science.

There is no solution other than that in science, whenever science will be able to do it. Philosophy and religion have tried it since millenniums and have not been able to answer it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Gods have been thought about and rejected.

I'm quite certain that no individual human being has ever given a single thought to the vast majority of gods that humanity has ever believed in.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Each living being is different, one does not need to check all of 7.8 billion humans to know the various kinds that exist.

 

[night912]

And using another definition of theist there is no contradiction.

Regards
Mikkel

Wrong again. Every definition of theist consists of a creator god. No matter how you try to twist it, you are wrong. So join me and laugh.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Each living being is different, one does not need to check all of 7.8 billion humans to know the various kinds that exist.

I don't see how your analogy has anything to do with what I said.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I do not think I have missed on any God, even FSM or Cthulhu. And if any new one comes up, I might have seen a similar one some other time.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I do not think I have missed on any God, even FSM or Cthulhu.

So you think you not only have heard of, but have an opinion of, every one of the gods in this partial list?

A big list of Gods (but nowhere near all of them) | The Rational Response Squad

I don't believe you.

And if any new one comes up, I might have seen a similar one some other time.

Regardless of your confidence about your future opinions, right now you have no opinion about any gods you've never heard of.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Regardless of your confidence about your future opinions, right now you have no opinion about any gods you've never heard of.

No. It is not like that. I deny all and every kind of God, including those of whom I may have not heard of.