The difference between an Atheist and Theist

[Unveiled Artist]

You have to explain how I got it wrong not just that I did.

A atheist believe the energy that made the universe is not concious. And theists believe the energy that made the universe is concious. Thats the only difference between us. very little difference really

Yes many atheists do believe the universe/universes have a source. But they believe the source is an energy with no conciousness. Just like the the wind, gravity or electricity

I was referring to this: Many atheists do believe the universe has a source.

They don't. That's where your argument drops. They believe the universe (say big bang) is the source not has it.

What is consciousness to the physical universe?

 

[Audie]

The meanings of words aren't decided by the belief on one individual though. I could believe atheists are the green bits that grow on trees but I'd be wrong.

The key question would be why are you so determined to impose this singular definition and distinction between atheists and theists (for all your talk about it being a small difference)?

To me it looks like good old fashioned binary thinking, with all its inherent limitations and errors.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I think the simpler way of putting it would be that everyone, whether theist or atheist, has to take the existence of something as a basic, unexplained fact. Atheists take the universe as such, and theists take God as such.

If I share my guess, it is that the basic which exists has an non-existant phase also. At times, it turns into nothing, that is why Ex-nihilo. We cannot explain that at the moment, that is why it is not a theory, not a hypothesis, just a hunch, which was mentioned 3000 years ago in RigVeda:

"Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existant's kinship in the non-existent."
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.
This being my favorite line in RigVeda along with another in the same hymn:
"The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?"
One of the most beautiful hymns in RigVeda attributed to one 'Parameshthi Prajapati'.

It does not seem that we have made much progress in 3,000 years.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I Understand, the Source is G-d or Allah, who has many other attributes that He himself has let us know in Quran without these attributes the Universe was impossible to exist reasonably. Right, please?
There is no other reasonable claimant, I understand. Right, please?

Regards

There is "no other reasonable claimant" in your opinion. There are lots of others who say the same thing about their claimant, and their claimant is necessarily Allah or God.

If you are going to make such a claim, in the face of such other claims, then you should be prepared to defend it with evidence.

 

[SigurdReginson]

To me it looks like good old fashioned binary thinking, with all its inherent limitations and errors.

The problem with binary thinking is that it's a learned behavior. It takes real effort to get out of that mindset once it's entrenched.

 

[Nakosis]

The only difference between a theist and atheist is this:

It doesn't matter if you believe in creationism or evolution for this thought experiment lets go to the source of all things. I am going to call this SOURCE. For theists this SOURCE can be God and for atheists it can be the energy that made up the original big bang it really doesn't matter.

A atheist believe the energy that made the universe is not concious. And theists believe the energy that made the universe is concious.

How did this SOURCE of everything come into existence?

It is 2 possible ways SOURCE came into existence:

1. It has always existed with no beginning and no end.
2. Magically popped into existence from nothingness.

(it was Focusedintent who wrote this, in this tread: Proving logic can't explain existence | Religious Forums)

A atheist believe the energy that made the universe is not concious. And theists believe the energy that made the universe is concious. Thats the only difference between us. very little difference really

IMO, there does not exist enough information to support any particular belief. The truth is more likely the answer is something that has not been considered yet.
The possible answers are pretty much endless with any of them being as likely as the next.

So far everything we've looked into has had a natural explanation. Nothing as of yet has required a belief in supernatural causes.

We have no knowledge of nothingness having had ever existed. No reason really to support a belief that it ever did.

Source is kind of an arbitrary designation. You can call the source of a tree, the seed it came from but this seed came from another tree. Claiming something as a "source" doesn't mean it came from nothing.

The first belief I would question would be the necessity of this arbitrarily named source having to have come from nothing.

 

[Samael_Khan]

"I don't know" will make them agnostic. An atheist must believe that there is no God.
Yeah, Mr. Khan, there are soft atheists and had atheists.

An agnostic is "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God."

An atheist is "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."

One is a knowledge claim and the other is a belief claim.

So an agnostic can be an atheist, but not all atheists are agnostics.
An agnostic can also be a theist, but all theists are not agnostic.

So the idea of agnosticism is that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God. But one can still believe in God or not despite that claim about knowledge.

Agnostic theism - Wikipedia.

Agnostic atheism - Wikipedia.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Is the wind conscious? The sun? A chair? (Made from the earth)

The atoms that make air are conscious, the atoms in sun or chair too are not inactive. The electrons in them are whirring probably at the speed of light in it. Basically nothing is at rest, whether in life or after that.

 

[SigurdReginson]

The atoms that make air are conscious, the atoms in sun or chair too are not inactive. The electrons in them are whirring probably at the speed of light in it. Basically nothing is at rest, whether in life or after that.

?...

How are atoms conscious?

 

[Samael_Khan]

My point in this tread:

A atheist believe the energy that made the universe is not concious. And theists believe the energy that made the universe is concious.

Is there something other than energy that could account for the making of the universe?

 

[Samael_Khan]

What if someone believes there was some conscious creator of the universe but doesn't see it as a god? What if someone believes in beings they consider gods but not that they created the universe?

You seem to be creating a very restrictive definition on the "theo" that forms the root of those words that isn't consistent with or embracing any of the meanings commonly attributed to it.

Ironically, I am an even stronger believer in your conclusion, since I think two people could have almost exactly the same views of the universe and still be considered (by themselves or others) and atheist and theist. One person could be considered both atheist and theist by different people and in different contexts. It's almost as if the words are fairly useless in determining what the similarities and differences between us are.

This is a good response because then the question is "what would an atheist consider a god"? Also what if it was multiple Gods? And what if everything just popped into existence mysteriously without there being anything else involved?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Eh... Not sure I'd say plants are necessarily conscious. They respond to stimuli, but actual consciousness requires a brain, no?

They respond to thousands of stimuli in thousands of ways. Give out odors, warn their neighbors, act against the invades in their own way. Create things in themselves which are not liked by invaders.

 

[Samael_Khan]

What if someone believes there was some conscious creator of the universe but doesn't see it as a god? Well i think they are theist. Because I think the very much of the difference between atheism and theism is this:

A atheist believe the energy that made the universe is not concious. And theists believe the energy that made the universe is concious.


What if someone believes in beings they consider gods but not that they created the universe? Hm. difficult question. But yes, they are theist too. But not very much theist in my opinion if they do not believe in a creator god in addition to the other gods.

In many religions there are many gods who participate in religion and even beings that existed before the gods that created the universe.

 

[SigurdReginson]

They respond to thousands of stimuli in thousands of ways. Give out odors, warn their neighbors, act against the invades in their own way. Create things in themselves which are not liked by invaders.

...Uhhh...

Sources please?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The atoms that make air are conscious, the atoms in sun or chair too are not inactive. The electrons in them are whirring probably at the speed of light in it. Basically nothing is at rest, whether in life or after that.

Why call it consciousness?

Maybe energetic, momentum, something that involves as an action word. Karma?

For example, western view the soul is consciousness because it is considered the identity of a person and that person is aware of itself (or in christianity its relationship with god, christ, so have you). It's a fixed entity rather than a movement of electrons. Like a ball rolling down hill. Why not call it gravity rather than saying that the ball is conscious of itself because of the gravity and its influence on the ball (if I got that right)?

Is there a good definition of it?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Ok. Can you point to an example of consciousness not needing a brain?

Ameba for instance. Brain came up just about 700 million years ago in a fish.

?...How are atoms conscious?

They react to their environment. Is not that consciousness?

...Uhhh... Sources please?

Wikipedia. Let me find the page for you.

 

[Koldo]

The only difference between a theist and atheist is this:

It doesn't matter if you believe in creationism or evolution for this thought experiment lets go to the source of all things. I am going to call this SOURCE. For theists this SOURCE can be God and for atheists it can be the energy that made up the original big bang it really doesn't matter.

A atheist believe the energy that made the universe is not concious. And theists believe the energy that made the universe is concious.

How did this SOURCE of everything come into existence?

It is 2 possible ways SOURCE came into existence:

1. It has always existed with no beginning and no end.
2. Magically popped into existence from nothingness.

(it was Focusedintent who wrote this, in this tread: Proving logic can't explain existence | Religious Forums)

A atheist believe the energy that made the universe is not concious. And theists believe the energy that made the universe is concious. Thats the only difference between us. very little difference really

I wouldn't say it has to have no end as in your #1, because the source might as well be gone by now.
However....
As for you main point, you are more or less correct. The problem though is that there is hardly anyone that is merely a theist or even atheist.
So, for instance, the difference between a Christian and an atheist is bigger than that.

 

[viole]

The only difference between a theist and atheist is this:

It doesn't matter if you believe in creationism or evolution for this thought experiment lets go to the source of all things. I am going to call this SOURCE. For theists this SOURCE can be God and for atheists it can be the energy that made up the original big bang it really doesn't matter.

A atheist believe the energy that made the universe is not concious. And theists believe the energy that made the universe is concious.

How did this SOURCE of everything come into existence?

It is 2 possible ways SOURCE came into existence:

1. It has always existed with no beginning and no end.
2. Magically popped into existence from nothingness.

(it was Focusedintent who wrote this, in this tread: Proving logic can't explain existence | Religious Forums)

A atheist believe the energy that made the universe is not concious. And theists believe the energy that made the universe is concious. Thats the only difference between us. very little difference really

since the total amount of energy in the universe seems to sum to zero, I am not sure what your point is.

ciao

- viole

 

[Audie]

The problem with binary thinking is that it's a learned behavior. It takes real effort to get out of that mindset once it's entrenched.

Mandatory for theists.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Why call it consciousness? Maybe energetic, momentum, something that involves as an action word. Karma?

I believe a response which changes according to a trigger is consciousness, whether in animals, vegetation or even in non-living things. Call it "Karma", if you so desire.

This is a good response because then the question is "what would an atheist consider a god"? Also what if it was multiple Gods? And what if everything just popped into existence mysteriously without there being anything else involved?

Why what props up should be a God (and not many Gods, Goddesses)?