Poll: are you an atheist, theist or ?

[Kapalika]

Not an expert, but monotheism is sometimes close to non-theism, particularly if you define God as 'Whatever caused the universe'. In that case you have neither a well-defined being, nor necessarily even an interactive one. Polytheism can also be fairly close to non-theism by having some vaguely defined assortment of deities that are not interactive. Suppose for example that you're following the Greek myths but don't see the gods as beings so much as universal principles. Then your polytheism is close to nontheism. So in those cases both monotheism and polytheism can be close to nontheism (since you are differentiating nontheism from atheism), and therefore I argue theism can be similar to non-theism in some cases for the purposes of this thread.

I don't know where you got these definitions since I was trying to put the wording of the definitions to avoid logic like the kind you just used to say theism is like the thing that literally means "not theism".I'm trying not to be sassy at this point about people disagreeing with what I considered pretty straight forward and mostly typical definitions.

Nontheism doesn't mean they don't interact, just that whatever deities exist if any are not like the ones from theism. Theism is defined as a personal deity that interacts with the world in some direct fashion. Mono and poly only vary by number and can be theist or nontheist. And atheism is not believing in any gods at all. Not accusing you of it but it seems people are nitpicking and not seeing the bigger picture. Your post IMO just seems more to be conflating terms.

I'm surprised no one told me "that definition of transtheism is wrong" yet, it's actually the only one that escaped scrutiny probably because I said 'how Tillich and Zimmer defined it" as well they basically invented the term. Every other term has been met with some kind of criticism with little suggestion on what would be "correct."

I probably shouldn't complain though, the vast majority of people who posted or interacted on the poll seemed to have no issue with my definitions. I'm just surprised how much a vocal minority seem to desperately be trying to find something to disagree with.

 

[Corvus]

That's interesting, we all have different backgrounds- which do you identify with now? both?

I don't identify with either really, I tolerate Christianity because I have to, as my brothers, mother and father are all Christians. I and my youngest sister are the only atheists. As for occult stuff I have a fondness for it, because it reminds me of my childhood. I collect Tarot card sets, and have now amassed hundreds of decks. I love the archetypes and concepts they represent plus of course the art work and symbolism. I know people use them for divination purposes, I am extremely skeptical of that whole area of psychic abilities and whatnot, I wouldn't rule it out yet though. I have observed some unusual so called psychic feats demonstrated by individuals. That defied rational explanation.

 

[leibowde84]

I know people like to say that lacking a belief in god and believing that gods do not exist is different, but it just seems like semantics to me. The only difference if any I can see is that "lack" implies a sense of passiveness where "disbelieves" indicates a more active non-acceptance of the concept.

So basically.... both are an atheist so WTF does it matter?

Just wanted to clarify what meaning you are using for the term "atheist". Personally, I think there is a big difference between strong and weak atheism. The former, imho, is a bit unreasonable, but the latter seems to be the most reasonable view out there.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I probably shouldn't complain though, the vast majority of people who posted or interacted on the poll seemed to have no issue with my definitions. I'm just surprised how much a vocal minority seem to desperately be trying to find something to disagree with.

I think you got a pretty good turnout on your poll.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I don't identify with either really, I tolerate Christianity because I have to, as my brothers, mother and father are all Christians. I and my youngest sister are the only atheists. As for occult stuff I have a fondness for it, because it reminds me of my childhood. I collect Tarot card sets, and have now amassed hundreds of decks. I love the archetypes and concepts they represent plus of course the art work and symbolism. I know people use them for divination purposes, I am extremely skeptical of that whole area of psychic abilities and whatnot, I wouldn't rule it out yet though. I have observed some unusual so called psychic feats demonstrated by individuals. That defied rational explanation.

It's a very interesting question. I'm on the fence myself, having been born and raised quite atheist and materialistic

You can talk to the staunchest skeptic/materialist and almost always, eventually, uncover extraordinary experiences they confess to be inexplicable, myself included.

I think there is a phenomena here, where the 'supernatural' plays no practical role in our daily practical lives, so it's always very tempting to downplay and write off as coincidence- much simpler and more comfortable than pondering the implications of these experiences.

 

[Quintessence]

Then what are you? AFAIK a theist does believe in an intervening deity, as opposed to say something like deism.

As far as I'm aware, deism (which I would call a type of theism given it embraces a god-concept) was a reaction to Christian theology where people believe that their deity is interventionist or takes an active interest human affairs. Deism was a reaction against belief in things like miracles, god actively responding to intercessory prayers, and the notion of revelation and prophecies in general. Western culture is strongly influenced by Christianity and their ways of thinking about deity, so it's not at all uncommon for folks in Western culture to define deity in ways that revolve around their teachings.

Still, there's little doubt that I am a theist. I am just not a theist if one is expecting that to look like Christian or Abrahamic theology as you seem to be in your poll (hence removing my vote). I don't feel "intervene" is an appropriate word to describe the perspective of my theology, as it implies some sort of willful desires on their part to mess with humans. I can't muster being that anthropocentric in general, and definitely not for the gods.

 

[Liu]

Still, there's little doubt that I am a theist. I am just not a theist if one is expecting that to look like Christian or Abrahamic theology as you seem to be in your poll (hence removing my vote). I don't feel "intervene" is an appropriate word to describe the perspective of my theology, as it implies some sort of willful desires on their part to mess with humans. I can't muster being that anthropocentric in general, and definitely not for the gods.

That sounds similar to the reasons why I chose non-theism as in regards to the definition given that fits best.

 

[Quintessence]

That sounds similar to the reasons why I chose non-theism as in regards to the definition given that fits best.

Yeah, I guess I didn't want to do that because I stubbornly refuse to let Abrahamic theologies dictate the meaning of the word "theism." Maybe I feel that way because they are a later theological development...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The definitions are defined in a way to not overlap.

To do that, you had to redefine them from how people actually use the terms.

If you really think the do how about you give some of your own definitions? The terms yes overlap in everyday life because people are a little more loose with the meanings. I wanted to "for the purposes of this poll" avoid overlap while covering the entire spectrum. This isn't my fault but the fault of language.

"Non-theist" is nothing more than a euphemism for "atheist". They mean exactly the same thing. If you're going to include both terms but redefine them so they don't overlap, what you end up with will necessarily be a distortion.

And your definition of "transtheist" was internally contradictory nonsense: "both nontheistic AND nonatheistic"? There's no such thing.

I also get the sense you like most people are not very familiar with nontheistic and transtheistic religious beliefs.

Being a nontheist myself (an actual nontheist, not your redefined version), I have at least a passing familiarity with it.

Also are you telling me you are not an atheist according to the definition I gave?

No, I'm not. I have no opinion at all on any of the gods I've never even heard of. I can't decide that something is fictional until I consider it.

And for the gods I've heard of and considered, in most cases, my position is something like "belief isn't justified based on what you're telling me." I've heard of lots of bad arguments for gods, but a bad argument doesn't necessarily mean your conclusion is correct; it just means we hold off on accepting the claim as true until we get a good argument.

How did I define atheist wrong in your opinion?

An atheist is someone who does not believe in any gods. It isn't necessarily someone who believes that all gods are fictional.

Other problems with your definitions:
- "theist" has two definitions; both are valid, but when you jump between them, you end up equivocating.

- a transtheist is necessarily an atheist or a theist, since everyone is one or the other. The term "transtheist" speaks to a different question: how much weight the person puts on belief in gods. "I don't care that I'm a theist; the term doesn't speak to what I think is important" does not equal "I'm not a theist."

- "non-theist" is a euphemism for atheist. They mean exactly the same thing. "Non-theist" is just a way for an atheist to describe themselves in settings where people will get offended or look down on them for using the word "atheist."

 

[Liu]

"Non-theist" is nothing more than a euphemism for "atheist". They mean exactly the same thing. If you're going to include both terms but redefine them so they don't overlap, what you end up with will necessarily be a distortion.

Let me point you to the Wikipedia article: Nontheism - Wikipedia

And your definition of "transtheist" was internally contradictory nonsense: "both nontheistic AND nonatheistic"? There's no such thing.

There is if we accept the rather narrow definition of "theist" in the OP.

 

[Liu]

Yeah, I guess I didn't want to do that because I stubbornly refuse to let Abrahamic theologies dictate the meaning of the word "theism." Maybe I feel that way because they are a later theological development...

I'm not sure whether we have actually much knowledge about how pagans before Christianity saw their deities, whether they considered them "personal" deities that "intervene or that use supernatural powers" or not. The myths sure sound like they did, but that doesn't mean that they believed that to be literally true. And then there certainly was also at that time a huge difference depending on education and social class. Anyway, if that was the case that at least some pagans had such a concept of deity, then the definition of theism in the OP isn't a later development.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Let me point you to the Wikipedia article: Nontheism - Wikipedia

You might want to read it yourself.

it has been used as an umbrella term for summarizing various distinct and even mutually exclusive positions, such as agnosticism, ignosticism, ietsism, skepticism, pantheism, strong or positive agnosticism, weak or negative agnosticism, atheism, strong or positive atheism, implicit atheism, and apatheism.

IOW, belief systems that do not include a god (i.e. atheistic belief systems) fall under the umbrella of non-theism.

 

[Liu]

You might want to read it yourself.


IOW, belief systems that do not include a god (i.e. atheistic belief systems) fall under the umbrella of non-theism.

Since when does Pantheism not include a god? And also Ietsism does, depending on your definition of god.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Since when does Pantheism not include a god?

You're right. That one shouldn't have been on Wikipedia's list. Pantheism is a type of theism and therefore not under the umbrella of non-theism.

And also Ietsism does, depending on your definition of god.

Then it sounds like ietsism straddles the line, with some individual adherents being non-theists and some being theists, depending on whether they regard their "something" as a god.

BTW: classification of someone else's beliefs isn't up to my definition of "god". If someone believes in something that I wouldn't consider a god but they do, then that person is a theist. If someone only considers one thing they believe in to be a god, even though they believe in other things I would consider gods, that person is a monotheist.

 

[LuisDantas]

Pantheism is considered both as a form of theism and as a form of non-theism.

Both classifications make sense on their own terms, because it is after all quite the arbitrary call.

It only goes to show how little meaning a generic theism has.

 

[columbus]

"Non-theist" is nothing more than a euphemism for "atheist". They mean exactly the same thing.

I truly think that a more meaningful use of the words is "Atheism is a subset of non-theism". Atheism indicates something more specific. It's more like one end of a spectrum of worldviews with deism at the other end. Deism overlapping with theism, depending on the exact meaning someone has for the word.
My worldview is agnostic deist. I find myself effectively an atheist in regular conversation. Other deists have more specific views about the characteristics of God, in my opinion they are often theistic. Other deists truly believe that God designed the universe, at least partly with us humans in mind, but doesn't interact with us because of free will. God does care about us, though. He intends for us to believe and be happy. To me, that's theism.

Personally, I see no reason to attribute anything to God. Not even sapience. I see God as more like gravity. Ineffable, perfect, changeless, eternal. Like God, gravity will sprinkle your garden with rain or drop you off a cliff to your death. Keep the Earth in orbit, or sterilize it with a really huge meteor. God doesn't care about anything any more than gravity does. Planning, caring, desiring, knowing, those are all human attributes not Divine ones.
God may exist, but It doesn't matter in any important way. That is not theism.
But they're both deistic worldviews. Deism is the worldview that straddles non-theist and theist.
Tom

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I truly think that a more meaningful use of the words is "Atheism is a subset of non-theism".

Can a thing be considered a subset of itself?

Atheism indicates something more specific. It's more like one end of a spectrum of worldviews with deism at the other end.

Why would deism be at the end of any spectrum?

BTW: I see the whole idea of placing atheism on a "spectrum" as problematic for the same reasons I feel this way about the terms "strong atheism" and "weak atheism": an individual can be at a different point on the spectrum for each god.

All "atheism" indicates is something other than belief in gods. This includes anything from complete ignorance of gods to considered non-commital positions to outright rejection of every god (if such a thing were possible).

Deism overlapping with theism, depending on the exact meaning someone has for the word.

Deism is a subset of theism. "Theism" covers much more than just classical monotheism involving interventionist gods and revealed religions.

My worldview is agnostic deist. I find myself effectively an atheist in regular conversation. Other deists have more specific views about the characteristics of God, in my opinion they are often theistic. Other deists truly believe that God designed the universe, at least partly with us humans in mind, but doesn't interact with us because of free will. God does care about us, though. He intends for us to believe and be happy. To me, that's theism.

Belief in an irrelevant god is still belief in a god, and hence falls within the umbrella of theism.

Personally, I see no reason to attribute anything to God. Not even sapience. I see God as more like gravity. Ineffable, perfect, changeless, eternal. Like God, gravity will sprinkle your garden with rain or drop you off a cliff to your death. Keep the Earth in orbit, or sterilize it with a really huge meteor. God doesn't care about anything any more than gravity does. Planning, caring, desiring, knowing, those are all human attributes not Divine ones.
God may exist, but It doesn't matter in any important way. That is not theism.

If it includes a belief that this god exists, then it's theism. Otherwise, it's atheism.

But they're both deistic worldviews. Deism is the worldview that straddles non-theist and theist.
Tom

Functionally, your beliefs may be closer to secular humanism than to traditional mainstream monotheistic religion, but unless your God is just a metaphor and not something you actually believe in, you're under the theistic umbrella.

No individual person "straddles non-theism and theism." Theism and non-theism form a MECE set.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

...much simpler and more comfortable than pondering the implications of these experiences...

And how many times does the question-inducing "coincidence" end up having some profound impact or see the involved parties coming to significant gains or understanding? From my experience being told about these things... not often at all. I hear tell of people bumping into one another, just as one had a particular question or issue that the other might be able to answer to, and the two are both sure they were "meant" to have this meeting, and that great things were in store... only to have the entire relationship dissolve, the two parties go about their separate ways, each claiming that "it wasn't the right time", as they were so sure it was initially.

And I've had plenty of people come to me and say things like "Now I know you don't believe in God, but He was definitely at work in [X]", and in place of "[X]" they describe the most normal, inane, everyday "who-cares" kind of occurrence, and I am left entirely confused, and, to be honest, fearing for the future of humanity in some cases.

Also all sorts of stories where people were praying over someone who suddenly found themselves in a life-threatening situation (choking, heart-attack and the like). The story usually goes that someone in the place was a nurse or paramedic, and that they were working on the person while a group of people were praying to the side. And then they go on to take credit when the person has a recovery - stating that "God heard their prayers and answered." So... the paramedic/nurse/etc. had nothing to do with it? Interesting. But wait... if God had plans for this person, was He really going to let them die had you not prayed? Again, interesting.

I am one who has never, ever had a personal experience that could not be explained away without invoking the supernatural, and I can't help but see the skeptical/pessimistic side of people's stories claiming that they have. In fact, I am one who has become so jaded with the failure of the supernatural to appear or affect this world in any way that I am no longer affected by things like "hearing something" outside or walking into darkness after watching a scary movie, feel nothing as I ascend/descend stairs into darkness, do not even flinch in those commercially run "haunted houses" or anything that happens inside, can play any "scary" game as if it were Super Mario World, etc. In fact, I've also more recently realized that my heart does nothing if someone jumps out from hiding as a joke/prank to scare me - if I am involved in a near-miss on the road, again... nothing. It was a miss... no matter how near. There literally has to be potentially life-threatening and apparent danger before my heart-rate rises even one iota. I swear if I ever come across something for which there is simply no viable, realistic explanation, I'll be the first to admit it. As it stands, I've got nothing... and that track record just keeps on racking up entries, day-in, day-out.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And how many times does the question-inducing "coincidence" end up having some profound impact or see the involved parties coming to significant gains or understanding? From my experience being told about these things... not often at all. I hear tell of people bumping into one another, just as one had a particular question or issue that the other might be able to answer to, and the two are both sure they were "meant" to have this meeting, and that great things were in store... only to have the entire relationship dissolve, the two parties go about their separate ways, each claiming that "it wasn't the right time", as they were so sure it was initially.

And I've had plenty of people come to me and say things like "Now I know you don't believe in God, but He was definitely at work in [X]", and in place of "[X]" they describe the most normal, inane, everyday "who-cares" kind of occurrence, and I am left entirely confused, and, to be honest, fearing for the future of humanity in some cases.

Also all sorts of stories where people were praying over someone who suddenly found themselves in a life-threatening situation (choking, heart-attack and the like). The story usually goes that someone in the place was a nurse or paramedic, and that they were working on the person while a group of people were praying to the side. And then they go on to take credit when the person has a recovery - stating that "God heard their prayers and answered." So... the paramedic/nurse/etc. had nothing to do with it? Interesting. But wait... if God had plans for this person, was He really going to let them die had you not prayed? Again, interesting.

I am one who has never, ever had a personal experience that could not be explained away without invoking the supernatural, and I can't help but see the skeptical/pessimistic side of people's stories claiming that they have. In fact, I am one who has become so jaded with the failure of the supernatural to appear or affect this world in any way that I am no longer affected by things like "hearing something" outside or walking into darkness after watching a scary movie, feel nothing as I ascend/descend stairs into darkness, do not even flinch in those commercially run "haunted houses" or anything that happens inside, can play any "scary" game as if it were Super Mario World, etc. In fact, I've also more recently realized that my heart does nothing if someone jumps out from hiding as a joke/prank to scare me - if I am involved in a near-miss on the road, again... nothing. It was a miss... no matter how near. There literally has to be potentially life-threatening and apparent danger before my heart-rate rises even one iota. I swear if I ever come across something for which there is simply no viable, realistic explanation, I'll be the first to admit it. As it stands, I've got nothing... and that track record just keeps on racking up entries, day-in, day-out.

Well thanks for the detailed response!

That sort of underscores my point, you are fairly passionately inclined towards the skeptical position- you obviously take some gratification in it, as I once did. I can only speak for myself, but I found it an extremely comfortable stance, I was a 'rock solid, logical, rational person', where everyone else was a' little weak minded, gullible, susceptible to fantasy'. Maybe I don't feel quite so superior anymore!

But there is no black and white logical answer either way though- we all get dealt various hands in life, some seem lucky or unlucky... right? do they fit a random pattern or not- it's a good question.

If we are at a casino, a few winning hands is nothing to raise an eyebrow at, even if rather improbable, but if we see 5 royal flushes in a row being played.. do you still put this down to chance? No, we know he's cheating. Luck is not impossible, it's just not the most likely explanation unless we can UTTERLY rule out cheating to an impossible degree.

I guess that's what it comes down to for me, to be quite certain everything is a purely unguided accident, we have to be quite certain that there is no creative involvement- and as the analogy, we just can't do that, tempting as may be. i.e. your position requires a lot more certainty about the ultimate nature of reality, which I can't claim to have anymore.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Well thanks for the detailed response!

That sort of underscores my point, you are fairly passionately inclined towards the skeptical position- you obviously take some gratification in it, as I once did. I can only speak for myself, but I found it an extremely comfortable stance, I was a 'rock solid, logical, rational person', where everyone else was a' little weak minded, gullible, susceptible to fantasy'. Maybe I don't feel quite so superior anymore!

But there is no black and white logical answer either way though- we all get dealt various hands in life, some seem lucky or unlucky... right? do they fit a random pattern or not- it's a good question.

If we are at a casino, a few winning hands is nothing to raise an eyebrow at, even if rather improbable, but if we see 5 royal flushes in a row being played.. do you still put this down to chance? No, we know he's cheating. Luck is not impossible, it's just not the most likely explanation unless we can UTTERLY rule out cheating to an impossible degree.

I guess that's what it comes down to for me, to be quite certain everything is a purely unguided accident, we have to be quite certain that there is no creative involvement- and as the analogy, we just can't do that, tempting as may be. i.e. your position requires a lot more certainty about the ultimate nature of reality, which I can't claim to have anymore.

I admit to not knowing. However I can also play the probability card. Statistically speaking, the number of occurrences of activity for which there is not a "coincidence" detected by any of the parties involved, very probably outweighs the number of instances where coincidence is detected by a billion to one or greater. It's the same logic used to explain why flying is safer than driving. Non-coincidence is ludicrously more likely than coincidence. And so even the coincidences themselves can be put down to mere chance/anomaly. Just as the plane wreck is simply the culmination of various outlying factors that make that crash more likely - an anomaly. One person didn't check this or that as well as they should have, the pilot happens to miss an important cue from developing weather patterns and communications are somehow lost at a crucial moment that would have seen him otherwise alerted. Anomalous, and not nearly representative of a large enough swath of general plane travel to warrant shutting down all planes, or to definitively say "travelling by plane is too dangerous."