How do you do that, exactly?
If you deny "every kind of God" including the ones you've never heard of, you must have some general definition for "god." What is it?
-
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-Theist
- Thread starter Nakosis
- Start date
If you deny "every kind of God" including the ones you've never heard of, you must have some general definition for "god." What is it?
Hypothetical examples of a non-theists who are not atheists:
- Someone who may accept concepts labeled as god, but rejects hierarchical terms applied to them such as supreme or fallen.
- A person who is confused over the terms god or deity.
- A person who doesn't care
- A person who thinks god(s) are man-made, rather than man being god-made
- A person who works on their own without petitioning deities for help
Last edited:
So you would consider a polytheist who believes in a whole pantheon of gods, but no creator-gods, to be an atheist?
Hopefully you recognize that your understanding of the word "god" isn't universally shared.
Still an atheist.
Still an atheist (unless they believe in a god or gods despite being confused).
Whether a person cares is irrelevant. Someone who doesn't care about the question and doesn't believe in any gods is an atheist; they just don't care that they're an atheist.
Still an atheist.
(Unless they regard those "gods" as actual gods despite believing them to be man-made, in which case they'd be a theist)
How is that relevant to the question of whether someone's an atheist?
Even if they accept "god concepts" as valid? (as stated)
They might be confused over the actual labels of gods or deities and how to apply them.
Caring/trusting/confidence (or whatever emotional or non-emotional element you wish to name) is a key aspect of belief, no? If you remove whatever key aspects that make belief a belief, then the term belief does not apply, no? So, my example would entail removing whatever key aspect of belief you name regarding god/deities.
A person who believes in man-made gods (theist by your declaration in this bullet point) who does not apply hierarchical terms to them such as supreme or fallen (atheist by your declaration in the first bullet point.)
They are a non-theist without regard to theism or atheism. (Theism/atheism is not relevant to their practice.)
Last edited:
Sorry - I misspoke on that one. I should have said "still a theist."
Someone who believes in a god but not the hierarchical structures of some religions is still someone who believes in a god.
Doesn't matter.
Regardless of whether they're sure their understanding of "god" is in line with everyone else's understanding, it's still their personal understanding that matters.
And gods are confusing. The fact that, say, the Greek god Hermes os a god but the archangel Gabriel/Jibreel isn't one is completely arbitrary and nonsensical. Nevertheless, we say that Muslims are monotheists because they are based on their understanding of what a god is.
... and if a person has no understanding of what a god is at all, then they're an atheist. It can't be the case that you believe in something that you would consider a god unless there's something you would consider a god.
No.
You can believe that something exists without having strong feelings about it or relying on its existence.
The person you describe believes in something they consider a god, so they're a theist.
This really isn't difficult.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
Again: doesn't matter. Every person either believes in one or more gods (theist) or they don't (atheist). This is still the case even if they don't care.
How old is a 33-year-old who doesn't care about their age? (Hint: the answer isn't "it's not relevant to them, so they have no age").
Let me repeat: a person who works on their own without petitioning deities for help has a non-theist practice, regardless of whether they are theist, atheist, apatheist, ignostic, agnostic, transtheist, or anything else. This is a case where a person who has an exclusively non-theist practice may be a theist in belief, or atheist, deist, apatheist, ignostic, agnostic, transtheist, or anything other god-or-non-god-related belief.
Anyone can engage in non-theist practices, such as mindfulness meditation, jhana practice, breath-directed meditation, mudra practice, etc. Their beliefs are not relevant to their non-theist practices. I happen to be a transtheist who engages in non-theist practice. My beliefs may go back and forth between atheism, theism, polytheism, pantheism, agnosticism, ignosticism, or whatever. My beliefs don't matter. Beliefs come and go. It is the non-theistic practices that matter and produce the lasting effects.
This is a major difference between non-theism and atheism.
Last edited:
Question: why would a Deist engage in theistic practice if deity doesn't care? A Deist who engages in religious practice would therefore most likely engage in non-theist practices.
Do their deist beliefs disqualify them as a non-theist practitioner? Not at all, imo. Atheists do not have an exclusive hold on non-theistic religious practices.
Do their deist beliefs disqualify them as a non-theist practitioner? Not at all, imo. Atheists do not have an exclusive hold on non-theistic religious practices.
Let me give you a practical example:
Classic Luciferianism rejects worship. Anything else can be incorporated into a classic Luciferian's praxis. Since worship is excluded, classic Luciferianism is a non-theistic practice. However, a classic Luciferian can be theist, agnostic, atheist, deist, or whatever. The main thing is that they work to improve themselves and refrain from worship, except perhaps as an experiment to see how it affects their mind.
Theistic Luciferianism is a wholly different religion than Classic Luciferianism in that Theistic Luciferianism embraces what Classic Luciferianism rejects--namely worship of a deity.
Many people, including Theistic Luciferians, are confused over Classic Luciferianism's rejection of Theistic Luciferianism, when Classic Luciferians can be theists. The difference is the rejection of theistic worship and the embracing of non-theistic practices by Classic Luciferians, not the rejection or embracing of any god beliefs or non-beliefs.
Classic Luciferianism rejects worship. Anything else can be incorporated into a classic Luciferian's praxis. Since worship is excluded, classic Luciferianism is a non-theistic practice. However, a classic Luciferian can be theist, agnostic, atheist, deist, or whatever. The main thing is that they work to improve themselves and refrain from worship, except perhaps as an experiment to see how it affects their mind.
Theistic Luciferianism is a wholly different religion than Classic Luciferianism in that Theistic Luciferianism embraces what Classic Luciferianism rejects--namely worship of a deity.
Many people, including Theistic Luciferians, are confused over Classic Luciferianism's rejection of Theistic Luciferianism, when Classic Luciferians can be theists. The difference is the rejection of theistic worship and the embracing of non-theistic practices by Classic Luciferians, not the rejection or embracing of any god beliefs or non-beliefs.
I'm a bit confused by your choice of terminology.
There are lots of things that anyone does where gods are irrelevant. If a theist doesn't petition deities while they're driving a car, are they practicing "non-theist driving?"
Sounds like you're using the term "non-theist" in the way that I'd use the term "secular."
To me, "secular" implies "religious or theistic beliefs are irrelevant to this." "Non-theist" implies "theism is incompatible with this."
All that's fine, but in my mind, nothing that a theist does is "non-theist." Even if beliefs about gods are irrelevant to some practice, they must at least be compatible with theism if a theist is doing it.
If we go by your use of the terms, which I've never heard from anyone else and I'm not particularly inclined to accept.
I gave specific examples here, highlighted in red for your convenience:
I've named specific religious practices in regards to this, highlighted in red above.
So, would you call non-theist practices, such as mindfulness meditation, jhana practice, breath-directed meditation, mudra practice, etc "secular" practices? What would you call them other than non-theistic? Non-worshipping religious practices, perhaps?
Also, how do you jive equating atheism with nontheism when you define atheism as "simply without deity belief" and then go a step further by defining nontheism as "incompatable with theism?"
To use your own example: is driving a theistic practice, even if it isn't a religious practice?
LOL! You don't get out much, do you? Buddhists describe these very practices as "nontheistic." (As contrasted with deity practice, which some Buddhists might engage in, but not all Buddhists do.)
So, how would you describe the religious practices I mentioned above (mindfulness meditation, jhana practice, breath-directed meditation, mudra practice, etc?) They are religious practices, so "secular" does not fit. They are not incompatable with theism, so your definition of nontheist (incompatable with theism) would not fit either. They are not incompatable with atheism, either. They do not require one to be atheist, so atheist does not fit, either.
I'm curious as to what you come up with, and how you would distinguish these religious practices from worship or deity practice.
I'm sure I've said at some point that there are still cultures and academics which don't use theism = belief in one or more gods, which is a fairly recent use of the term.
Theism meant, specifically, an intervening supernatural god with agency. (More specifically a transcendental creator being which gives revelations.) And deism was a subset of atheism, not theism. Deists during the American founding father's times, and French enlightenment times, were considered atheists.
Some places and studies still do use the term this way. Non-theism became an extension of that, beliefs of non-theistic deities as well as belief in no deities (all atheists were non theists but not all non theists were atheist). Today use has just rolled up the concept into deism (which is not what deism meant originally) and now any god belief is called a kind of theism. But non-theism as separate and distinct from atheism still exists in just about every world religions text.
Last edited:
Accepting concepts that describes things, is not the same as accepting those things that are being described with concepts.
An atheist can accept the idea that a theist believes that the sun is god, but that atheist doesn't accept that the actual sun is a god.
Atheism/Theism are not a form of practice. One does not need to practice them. It's a description of their state of belief/lack of belief. Regardless of someone even knowing or heard of atheism/theism, they are categorised as being one or the other based on their belief in the existence of a god.
You are committing an Equivocation fallacy here. You have used "non-theist" as a description about theism and using it as a label for someone who is not a theist.
Those are religious practice. Theism/atheism are not a religion. The problem with what you are arguing, is again, your use of the word, "non-theist." You are using the same word in separate ways to its context. One is the description of the "practice" or ways of a particular type of person and the other usage is labeling a particular type of person.
Example:
1. Saying, "That is not the Christian, Buddhist, etc way of handling confrontation." - description of practices, beliefs, customs, etc of the said people
2. I'm not a Christian, Buddhist, etc. - labels of a particular group of people
So claiming that you are a "non-theist" is not the same claiming that you are not doing "non-theist" ways. The grammatically correct usage should be differentiate by using, "non-theist" and "non-theistic"
No, you are wrong about that. Theism is about the belief in a god, any kind of god. Why that definition? Because the word "theism" was developed from opposing "atheism," the lack of belief in the existence of a god, any kind of god.
Please show me where I did this.
To clarify, I'm referring to religious practices which are not theistically orientated. (Religious practices that do not involve a deity.) Anyone (theists, atheists, deists, and all others) can practice nontheistic practices such as mindfulness meditation, jhana practice, breath related meditation, or mudra practices. These religious practices do not involve a deity, and are therefore nontheistic.
Last edited:
Yes, that is the point I am making.
A person who practices exclusively nontheistic religious practices can properly describe themselves as a nontheistic practitioner.
Please show me where I did this.
Majority of what you said on the page.
Did you or did you not talk about non-theist practices and being a non-theist?